Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Member in charge, let me say that 21 Members want to speak, which will mean two to two and a half minutes for each speech. There are also a lot of people who wish to intervene. I am letting the Member in charge know that in order to give him an idea of when he might want to finish his speech—I suggest that he takes no longer than 20 minutes.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered duty of candour for public authorities and legal representation for bereaved families.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am here to speak about the urgent need for a statutory duty of candour and the full implementation of the Hillsborough law, and to oppose the forces that want to fight against this change.

Historically, the state has taken a defensive position to protect its own interests. From the Peterloo massacre to Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, the Post Office scandal, Grenfell, the contaminated blood scandal and nuclear test veterans, to name but a few, the list of state cover-ups is long, exhausting and utterly shameful. So many families have been denied truth and justice because of the current system, which enables cover-ups. How and why has a system been left in place that has continually enabled the establishment to evade truth, accountability and justice for those wronged? That is a question that this place and this country should think long and hard about.

I was at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 when 97 innocent women, children and men lost their lives and countless more lives were destroyed. It was not just a tragedy; it was a betrayal—a betrayal compounded over decades by lies, cover-ups and institutional failures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the hard work he has done on this issue since he entered the House. As he was speaking, I thought to myself that in all the cases that have led to these discussions—Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, nuclear test veterans, the Primodos scandal and countless others—the victims and their families have had to deal with the initial trauma of the incident and then the prolonged trauma as a result of all the lies that have been told. Does he agree that introducing a duty of candour would protect victims and their families from that prolonged trauma and that that should take priority over protecting the public body that is responsible? That is how the Government can show victims and their families that they are listening. This is why my hon. Friend is so forthright on bringing forward a Hillsborough law—because it would include the duty of candour.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short, as so many Members want to speak.

[Ian Byrne]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; she is spot on.

Out of sheer desperation at the situation, in July I used a private Member’s Bill, the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, to reintroduce the original Hillsborough law—the 2017 version. The Government rejected it, so here we are today, without the Hillsborough law, fighting against those same vested interests, and the clock continues to tick while people’s belief in politics and politicians continues to erode.

Let me be absolutely crystal clear for the Government: a full duty of candour with criminal sanctions is non-negotiable in any legislation bearing the name of Hillsborough. It is not a technicality; it is a moral imperative, and it is a moral and legal imperative that it sits at the heart of every inquiry, investigation and inquest, local and national—no exceptions. Nothing less will change the culture, because carve-outs become cover-ups, and this must never be allowed to happen again. Simply, if it had been law at the time of Hillsborough, we would not have waited decades for justice. So much pain and suffering could have been avoided, and families could have grieved for those lost instead of fighting the state for truth and justice. The duty of candour is about accountability. It is about preventing cover-ups, and it is about restoring public trust.

The second pillar of the Hillsborough law is legal parity, which is equally vital. Time and again, bereaved families have faced the might of the state with no legal support, while public bodies are armed to the teeth with expensive teams of lawyers. Parity of arms is essential to stop false narratives being spread and families feeling like it is them who are on trial. That imbalance is not just unfair; it is grotesque. I pay tribute to Deb Coles and the team at INQUEST for their constant championing of this. Their work was highlighted in “All or Nothing: A report on the Hillsborough Law Family Listening Day”. I urge everybody in this room and beyond to read it, to understand why parity of arms is so fundamental to gaining truth and justice.

If the Government resist a full duty of candour without exception, what does that say? Do they believe public officials should be allowed to lie with impunity? Do they believe families should continue to be denied justice? Opposition to this legislation is not about practicality. It highlights the power of vested interests. It is about protecting the status quo—a status quo that has caused untold harm to so many. The ball is now in the Government’s court. More specifically, it is in the Prime Minister’s court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. As I have indicated, a lot of people wish to speak. I will start with a formal time limit on speeches of two and a half minutes, but we might have to reduce that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate.

I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos, which I have led for over a decade alongside affected families in their fight for truth and justice. Primodos is one of the clearest examples of a systematic failure of candour in British medical healthcare. Between 1958 and 1978, around 1.5 million women in the United Kingdom were prescribed the hormone pregnancy test. From the 1960s, doctors and researchers raised concern that it was linked to miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects.

Instead of acting, the regulators actively suppressed the evidence and colluded with the pharmaceutical companies. When Dr Isabel Gal published her study in 1967, officials undermined her work rather than investigating it. Later, archives in the UK and Germany showed that they knew of the concerns, but kept patients in the dark, even though other countries had withdrawn the drug from the market.

After years of campaigning, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency finally established an expert working group in 2017. Its task was to examine whether there was a possible association. The final report said there was “no causal association”. That was not in the original draft; it was inserted late, under outside instruction, and caused misunderstanding by giving the impression of certainty. Moreover, the families were excluded from the process. We continued to campaign; in 2020 the Cumberlege review was set up and found that there had been avoidable harm, that people should receive redress, and that there should be a duty of candour and cultural change. However, five years later, only one recommendation—a patient safety commission—has been delivered.

The impact on the families has been horrendous. I call on our Government to recognise Primodos as a case study—[Interruption.]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. We have been disrupted by a Division. I am expecting everybody to be back here in 15 minutes, at 3.20 pm. When we come back, the hon. Lady will have half a minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing it.

The Government committed to a Hillsborough law in their first year, and it should be delivered without delay and in full. The case for action is starkly illustrated by the experience of bereaved families in my constituency and neighbouring areas whose daughters died under the care of Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS trust, known colloquially as TEWV. Three teenage girls—Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore—lost their lives in that trust’s care. The independent reports by Niche Health and Social Care Consulting into their deaths were unequivocal: the statutory duty of candour was not met, families were not told the truth and were not supported after the tragedy, and lessons were not learned. The candour that Parliament demanded in 2014 was absent in practice.

The trust has since acknowledged those failings, but wider evidence shows that that is not an isolated case. The Department of Health and Social Care’s recent call for evidence found that only 40% of NHS staff thought that the purpose of the duty was clear, and fewer than a quarter believed that it was correctly applied after serious incidents. Most damning of all, 94% of patients and families felt that providers failed to engage with them meaningfully or compassionately when things went wrong. Rob Behrens, the ombudsman, said that avoidable deaths in mental healthcare are “too common” and that the duty of candour does not work.

That is why we need an updated duty of candour—one that binds public authorities and individual leaders with consequences when truth is withheld. Crucially, bereaved families must have automatic access to funded representation. For too long, the state has been represented while ordinary families have had to fight alone. I therefore add my voice to those calling for a public inquiry into the deaths of Christie, Nadia and Emily. Indeed, other bereaved families have more than justifiable cause for complaint. Only a full inquiry can reveal the truth, demonstrate why the current duty is insufficient and ensure that lessons are learned. If “never again” is to mean anything, let us deliver the Hillsborough law in full so that openness, honesty and justice become the defining standards of public service.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Before I call Patrick Hurley, let me say that there are two Members who want to speak but are not on the list. I want everybody’s voice to be heard, so I will give them two minutes each at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members that we have very little time? Can we keep interventions short?

[Josh Babarinde]

The point my hon. Friend makes is testament to the importance of parity of legal representation.

To continue, how many lives must be lost before we accept that the public deserve honesty from those in power? When will we get to the truth proactively, not just when institutions are dragged to the witness box? That must change.

I pay tribute again to the tireless campaigners—the bereaved families of the Hillsborough disaster and the Grenfell tragedy, those wronged in the Post Office scandal and more—who have refused to accept institutional silence and deceit. However, it should not be up to victims or their grieving families to fight for decades to get answers; it should be the duty of the state to give them those answers—early, clearly and completely.

The Government must act without further delay. I therefore urge the Minister to announce a timeline for a new statutory duty of candour now. I urge that it is not watered down under any circumstances, and it must be accompanied with parity of legal representation for bereaved families during inquests and inquiries into disasters or state-related deaths. This Parliament must be the one that says, “No more lies, no more hiding and no more protecting institutions over protecting people.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask her to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge to respond. I thank everyone because we got everybody in today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend outlines exactly why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review into the criminal courts; the ambition is to reduce the length of time victims have to wait for justice. We are expecting the recommendations of that review shortly. We are supporting victims by funding key support services to make sure that victims continue to be engaged with our criminal justice system, and we are expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff can support victims directly.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T6.   I recently met Ruby Hamill—a young activist who nearly died in a Government-run prison when her severe eating disorder was ignored. Ruby is not a constituent; she wanted to talk to me because I chair the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. Will the Minister meet me and Ruby’s family to ensure that there are eating disorder guidelines in all prisons, and that the guidelines are appropriate and implemented across all prison healthcare providers?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am sorry to hear of the case that the hon. Member outlines, and I would be very happy to meet her to explore the issue further.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think what he is saying is that people have got different views, and they do have different views; we have different views in this House, and different people in different professions have different views. Every royal college has a neutral position on assisted dying because of that.

I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of, and the many safeguards in this Bill ensure that only terminally ill patients who are eligible under the strict criteria and want to access assisted dying can do so.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I felt disturbed by quite a lot of the emails that I received from constituents—some of them who are my friends and people I like—implying that we here are either too stupid or careless to care for the most vulnerable. Is it not true that we all do care, whatever decision we make today, and that we have to continue to educate people and tell them what this Bill is about?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and she is absolutely right; the detail does matter. That is why I am so grateful to colleagues who have engaged in the detail. We know that there are different views within the public, and we have to take on board the concerns of vulnerable groups—that is why the safeguards are so important—but I would also say that there is no one more vulnerable than someone who is dying.

Violence against Women and Girls

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for providing time for this incredibly important debate. The debate is timely, but unfortunately it is always timely to discuss violence against women and girls, given the issues that we face. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, and for showing the dedication that she has throughout her working life as an MP to making our spaces—online, in person, at home or at work—safer for all of us.

Why are we here to discuss violence against women and girls? It is because we live in a country where 97% of recorded rapes go unpunished. That is an improvement on the 98% that went unpunished just a few years ago. If they do get processed, it takes years for victims to fight through the backlogs for justice, as we have heard.

We know that over 80 women were killed by men last year. The true figure is probably much more, because at least 11 cases of women’s murders are still to be solved. As the Minister rightly said, a woman is killed every three days at the hands of a man.

The revenge porn helpline deals with 9,000 cases every year, and the number is increasing. We are increasingly seeing men and boys become victims of sextortion, but the victims of revenge porn and non-consensual intimate image abuse are predominantly women, and the problem is only going to get worse with new AI technology and nudification apps.

One in three women has been sexually assaulted, so the chances are that we will know women and girls—see them, work with them and cross paths with them every single day—who have been victims. Given the level of under-reporting in this country, we can assume that they have probably been sexually assaulted multiple times.

We live in a world in which Iraq has lowered the age of consent for girls to nine years old. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, women and girls describe their bodies as being an extension of a battlefield. Médecins Sans Frontières estimates that at least 25,000 women have been raped by militia in Congo.

If that is too far afield for Members or people at home to empathise with the seriousness of the situation for women and girls not just in this country but across the world, what about the group of 70,000 men in Germany who shared tips on how to rape, how to drug, how to get away with sexual assault, and how to wreak revenge on women and girls? Just in Germany, 70,000 men shared those tips. Can we guarantee that something similar is not happening closer to home? Probably not.

We are about to witness the inauguration of a President who openly boasted about grabbing women “by the pussy,” enabled by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk—who, on the one hand, has pretended over the last few weeks to care about the victims of sexual violence while, on the other hand, targeting and inciting hatred against the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), calling her an “evil witch.” That is digging deep into historical misogyny. How long have powerful women who stand up been constantly called a witch, or something that rhymes with it? I am pretty sure that most of us have been called something similar for standing up to those in power.

The hypocrisy of this man continues. He helped to elect a man who has lost another lawsuit against a woman who claims that he raped her—a man who has 26 claims of sexual assault against him. We have Members of this House who champion both those men. We often share this Chamber with a man who has been convicted of kicking a woman, and with others who think that is acceptable.

Sadly, violence against women and girls does not start or end with politics and war. As we have heard, society’s view of women is such an important part of this. In 2025, where are we as a society when it is okay for 70,000 men to get together to share tips on how to rape and sexually assault women and get away with it? What is our place in this world? What is the place of women and girls in this world? Are our institutions designed for us? Are they working for us? Are our services actually protecting or supporting us? For over a decade, when it comes to health, the police and justice, no one can say that is clearly the case.

We have been failed by institutions and individuals, which is why many of us still ask our friends to text us to say that they have got home safely. It is why many of us will not run at night, and why many of us wear just one earphone, if that, when we are walking around. It is why we carry keys in our pockets, rolled up in our hands. It is why we have to explain to our daughters what is appropriate and what is not, and it is why we should also explain that to our sons.

All of this happens, and continues to happen, to women and girls, and more so if they are black, Asian or minority ethnic, if they are disabled or if they are LGBT, which is why I am so grateful that we have a plan of action for halving violence against women and girls. That sounds like an incredible aim—an impossible task—but I hope it is not.

I have printed just one page, but the measures that will happen under this Labour Government to tackle violence against women extend over many pages. The ones I pick out are, first, that there will be domestic abuse specialists in every 999 control room, which will be life-changing for those with the bravery to pick up the phone and say, “I am being abused by a loved one.”

Rape cases will be fast-tracked through the courts. We have heard that justice delayed is justice denied. The minuscule number of reported rape cases that actually find their way to court are being dragged out to the extent that people give up hope.

Banning the creation of deepfakes and non-consensual intimate images is hugely important. The Women and Equalities Committee has heard evidence from brave survivors and victims of this cruel, degrading abuse. The impact that has, and continues to have, on their lives does not match the punishment that perpetrators currently face. I am grateful that we will see a minimum two-year sentence for these offences.

The Government are seeking to ensure that all victims of violence are seen, supported and protected, particularly migrant women and girls, as well as black, Asian and minority ethnic, LGBT+ and disabled women and girls. We can receive abuse and violence for multiple reasons—because we are a woman and because we are an ethnic minority, or because we are a woman and because we are disabled. Hatred never stays in one lane, or at least not for very long.

These measures are all needed and, in many areas, they have been neglected for years. We cannot take our eye off the ball, because there are those who seek to sell off our rights and freedoms to the highest bidder on the world stage.

Violence against women and girls does not come out of nowhere. I do not believe that any child is born with hatred in their heart and their mind. No baby boy is born thinking that he has a right over a woman’s body, or the right to abuse or rape her. It is society that instils that belief.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Before upskirting became a specific criminal offence, people said it was “just a laugh”. Does the hon. Member think we have a massive problem in society when offences against women are dismissed as just a laugh and seen as acceptable?

[Sarah Owen]

Yes, and that is why I want to talk about why society needs to move on. We can implement all these measures in the criminal justice system to make sure that the right people get the right support when they need it, but ultimately, we need to see the societal changes that the hon. Member outlines to ensure that we are not here having the same discussion 10 years down the line.

It is so important to address how society views not just women but men. What makes a good man? What makes a good boy, and which men should he aspire to become? I am looking forward to hearing more about the men and boys ambassador, but who are boys aspiring to become at the moment? Unfortunately, it is the men who shout the loudest and have the most money, even if they got their money, power and influence through the sex trafficking of women or by starting new political parties for “bros”.

This is nothing new, sadly. Whether it is the Harrods scandal, Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, we see the same pattern, time and again, of influence, power and money making them unaccountable to anybody until it is far too late. The answer to that is good role models, and there are plenty of them. There are so many. Being a strong, good man is very different from being the men I have highlighted. I am lucky to work alongside some of them, I am lucky to call some of them my friends, and I am really lucky to have some of them in my family.

It is also about holding up a mirror to the men who use their power, position and money to try to crush women and girls, and who see it as a badge of honour, rather than the badge of shame that it should be. What path leads a man to conclude that it is okay to rape someone? What path leads a man to believe that women are just commodities to buy, sell and traffic to please his needs? What kind of man uses his body to kick, punch and strangle women? How hollow is the shell of a man who gets his kicks from sending intimate videos or photos of a girl to embarrass or degrade her?

Unfortunately, just as we know many good men, we also know bad men. We work alongside them, and they are around every day of our lives, in every part of our lives. We like to paint rapists, perpetrators of sexual assault and predators as monsters or something “other”, but if we think about the statistics of sexual violence and rape that were highlighted earlier, we see that those men walk among us. Young boys need better role models than those promoted on X, Telegram and soon, I fear, Meta.

I want to end by talking about the people who embody the mirror that ensures shame is reflected on those who deserve it: Gisèle Pelicot and every other victim of abuse who steps forward. Gisèle Pelicot was drugged by her husband and raped by 51 men—betrayed by the person who should have loved and cherished her. As with so many cases of violence against women and girls, it was a supposed loved one—a close one. She waived her right to anonymity because she felt the “shame must change sides”. She could not be more right, but are we up to that challenge? Will women and girls stop being blamed and shamed, and will male perpetrators actually be held to account?

We are seeing action, but with technology we are always playing catch-up. The founder of the website that hosted the ads placed by Gisèle Pelicot’s husband to recruit his wife’s rapists has just been arrested in France. I am grateful that this Government are introducing measures to tackle online abuse and violence against women, but we cannot let up. We have to continue.

During my Committee’s most recent inquiry into non-consensual intimate image abuse, we heard that police officers were handing devices containing intimate images back to the perpetrators. That was a ludicrous situation, so I am grateful that the Minister outlined that there will be strengthening of the codes to ensure that no perpetrator of NCIIs will have devices or materials related to the original offence returned to them. We need to continue the fight against violence against women and girls, because it was never won in the first place. Perpetrators are using new technologies to evade justice and to inflict greater harms.

I will end with the words of Gisèle Pelicot after the verdicts against her husband and her rapists were given. She said:

“I now have confidence in our capacity to find a better future where everyone, women and men alike, can live in harmony with respect and mutual understanding.”

My goodness, I wish I shared her confidence, but I do share her hope. Much of that rests on the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls, and that the next generation of women have fire in their bellies, and a hunger for change and equality in their hearts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I do not think now is the time to consider that.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Avon and Somerset police is doing an excellent job at Bath Christmas market, challenging any individual seen behaving inappropriately towards a woman or young female. What more can the Ministry of Justice do to tackle street harassment?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are working closely with our colleagues in the Home Office to tackle violence against women and girls. This Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. That includes all crimes against women and girls, particularly harassment, and we are working together to ensure that that happens.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will take one more intervention.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is it not the case that the conversations that patients will have with doctors will bring out whether they have been coerced or are suffering intolerably? The criteria are about suffering, not whether somebody worries that they are a burden.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree absolutely. Those conversations, which are not taking place at the moment, are very important. I will make some progress.

There has rightly been a lot of discussion about palliative care in recent weeks, and I am convinced that a significant amount of that discussion would not have taken place without the introduction of the Bill. It is a long overdue conversation, and I am very pleased to see it happening.

I have met with the Association for Palliative Medicine, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder and Marie Curie, and last week I was delighted to attend the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for hospices. I also attended the fantastic Kirkwood hospice, which serves my constituency of Spen Valley. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff and volunteers across the country in the palliative care sector, who do some of the most vital work in society. We must do more to support them, and I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues across the House in that important endeavour. That is why I have included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.

Of course, assisted dying is not a substitute for palliative care—it is not an either/or. We have some of the best palliative care in the world in this country, and, when it can meet the needs of terminally ill people, it is second to none. However, when it cannot, surely the choice of an assisted death should be one component of a holistic approach to end of life care.

The comprehensive report by the Health and Social Care Committee, published earlier this year, found no indications of palliative care deteriorating in quality or provision in places where assisted dying had been introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I will not get into the question of public opinion and the polling, because it is so contested, but there is clear evidence that the doctors who work with the dying—the palliative care professionals—are opposed to a change in the law by a great majority. They see the damage that it would do to the palliative care profession and services, and they see the danger for vulnerable patients.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman talks to us as a medical professional and we need to listen to his views. But is it not true that any medical assessment is an approximation; something that cannot be said for certain? For this decision too, we cannot be 100% certain, but that is life. We cannot make legislation that is 100% good because at some point we have to make a decision, on balance, whether something has merit or not. For that reason, we should vote for the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, especially for promoting me to the status of doctor; I am actually a charity worker and political hack by background. It is good of her to credit me with those skills—perhaps I should set myself up as a medical practitioner. She is right that medics and indeed judges have to make difficult judgments all the time. I think it would be very dangerous and inappropriate to give them the power to do so in this case.

The whole question of the six-month cut-off is very important. I acknowledge all the points that have been made, but there is another problem with the definition of terminal illness. Almost anybody with a serious illness or disability could fit the definition. I recognise that these are not the cases that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has in mind—of course they are not—but that is the problem with the Bill. All that someone needs to do to qualify for an assisted death—for the definition of terminal illness—is refuse treatment, such as insulin if the person is diabetic. In the case of eating disorders, a topic on which I have worked with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), a person just needs to refuse food. The evidence from jurisdictions around the world, and our own jurisprudence, shows that that would be enough to qualify someone for an assisted death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry if offence is given, but the fact is that the value of having a Bill in black and white is seeing what the law really is. What the Bill would do is amend the Suicide Act 1961. It would allow people to assist with a suicide for the first time. I respect the hon. Lady’s concern, but I am afraid we do need to use the proper language here.

The Bill’s scope is very broad. Members who think that assisted suicide for people with anorexia or other conditions that would not be regarded as terminal could not happen here should consider the young people in the UK today who are given a diagnosis of terminal anorexia and put on a palliative care pathway—essentially, assigned to death. Of course these are extreme cases—

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Danny Kruger]

I am not going to give way again.

There are a great many of these cases, I am afraid, and I mention them to show how wide open the Bill is. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

11. Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault, harassment and misconduct cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)]

It is important to flag at the outset that confidentiality clauses are only ever used in the civil context, rather than the criminal. With that in mind, we are tabling an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to make any non-disclosure agreement void if it purports to restrict the right of an individual to report the same act to the police or to access any kind of medical or therapeutic support—a move that has been welcomed by many, including the Law Society and the Bar Council.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Thousands of people are silenced due to non-disclosure agreements and gagging clauses in cases of alleged sexual violence, bullying and harassment. The Legal Services Board has reported that signatories of NDAs suffer devastating impacts due to fear of retribution. Pregnant Then Screwed has said that an estimated 435,295 mothers have been gagged by an NDA or confidentiality clause. The Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) would end the misuse of NDAs in the workplace. Why are the Government so hesitant about supporting a statutory ban?

[Laura Farris]

As someone who spent more than a decade practising as an employment lawyer, I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a role for the confidentiality clause in any kind of compromise agreement when both sides resolve their dispute without going to court, and without admission of liability or any finding of liability on either side. We recognise that when they are used in their most extreme form, particularly in the most high-profile sexual harassment claims, victims have told us that they felt they could not go to the police or access counselling. We have righted that wrong. However, I will stand up for confidentiality clauses, and I want to correct slightly the hon. Lady’s point: they are only really encountered where there is a dispute concerning the Equality Act 2010. That needs to be immediately contextualised—it applies only in employment, education and in the provision of goods and services. We have taken the same step in relation to students through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

Violence Against Women and Girls: Sentencing

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

My hon. Friend, who has a wealth of experience on these matters, is absolutely right. That is why this is such an important debate. Although the title is “Violence Against Women and Girls”, the violence affects all children who witness it or are subjected to it.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. She is absolutely right that the violence is corrosive, because it leads to childhood trauma, and from that childhood trauma comes the next generation of violence. Does she agree that we need much better trauma-informed services across the board?

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

I agree, and later in my speech I come on to educating boys and girls on breaking the cycle of violence. The hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that we manage their trauma to get them to that point. In the last year, 34,408 violent offences were recorded in my police area of Devon and Cornwall, which is about 3,500 more crimes than in the year before the pandemic. That is consistent with national trends, which show that 2.1 million violent crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales—up more than 20% on pre-pandemic levels. Around 2.4 million people in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse in 2022, and around one in five homicides was related to domestic abuse. There were 1,765 convictions in the year to June 2022, up a third from the year before. Convictions are up by 23%.

The language that we use in this place should ensure two things. First, victims of violent crime and abuse must be assured that the police, courts and society as a whole are on their side. That means stopping the dangerous language suggesting that this Government have somehow decriminalised rape. I am generally not the most political of my colleagues, and I like to work collaboratively across the House wherever I can, but when I hear those claims and similar accusations from Members at the Opposition Dispatch Box, as I have done several times in the last few months, my heart sinks. We need to encourage more women to come forward, and to have faith in the authorities. If I were to make a plea to the Opposition, it would be to cease using that language. Those claims embolden perpetrators, and I am certain that the Opposition do not intend that outcome when they say those things.

We also need to encourage and properly resource the good practice that has been shown to work around the country, so that arrests can be made quickly, and so that conviction and sentencing is based on clear evidence that is gathered swiftly, with as little further distress to victims as possible. If there is to be an effective deterrent for perpetrators, the outcome has to be that victims are encouraged and nurtured when they come forward, and that convictions are swift.

In June 2022, Devon and Cornwall police published its violence against women and girls delivery plan, which has been developed in consultation with stakeholders. It is focused on building trust and confidence, relentless perpetrator pursuit and creating safer spaces in public, online and at home. Operation Soteria Bluestone, an approach pioneered by Avon and Somerset police, our neighbouring force, is now being rolled out in our force area. It aims to bring together criminal justice agencies and academics in order to deliver a more victim-focused and responsive approach, based on six key pillars of action.

Ahead of the introduction of Soteria Bluestone, Devon and Cornwall police launched Operation Gemstone in Plymouth. The six-month pilot is based on the findings of Soteria Bluestone, and provides four specialist investigative teams focused on rape and serious sexual offences in the city. Specialist teams have received bespoke additional training, benefited from improved supervision, and had enhanced engagement with the Crown Prosecution Service and partners, including independent sexual violence advocates, to address domestic abuse perpetrators’ behaviours.

Devon and Cornwall secured £417,000 in funding from the Home Office for 2022-23 to support projects across the peninsula. These projects involve working with people who cause harm to address their offending behaviours and prevent future victimisation. The funding also enables community safety partnerships to deliver behaviour change programmes, which ensure that those who cause harm can access vital support for mental health issues, drug and alcohol addiction and so on. Often financial stress is a factor as well.

Our area has also recruited a new domestic abuse behaviour change strategic lead to deliver an 18-month project developing a new partnership strategy. That brings together partners to collaborate on improving the peninsula-wide approach to working with people who cause harm by domestic abuse, and to prevent sexual offending. We commission two services that work with sexual offence perpetrators.

The South West Community Chaplaincy also works with sex offenders who no longer pose a harm according to the probation service. The chaplaincy provides a mentoring service that helps practically as well as with the behavioural challenges of individuals, who are referred directly by Devon and Cornwall police. 

Measures to increase physical safety in public spaces are important to combat the issue. That includes the £5 million safety of women at night fund, in addition to the safer streets fund, which focuses on the prevention of violence against women and girls in public spaces at night, including in the night-time economy. A new online tool, StreetSafe, provides women with a way to anonymously pinpoint areas where they have felt unsafe and to state why they felt unsafe there. It could be because of the lack of closed-circuit television or lighting, or because of the people they found around them. More than 15,000 reports have been submitted so far.

The Government have introduced a new national police lead on violence against women and girls; I suspect that the Minister will tell us more about that. The lead will be the point of contact for every police force, so that best practice is shared around the country. Following the end-to-end review of how the criminal justice system responds to rape, the Government announced an ambitious action plan to increase the number of rape cases that reach court without compromising defendants’ right to a fair trial. It includes plans for better data extraction technology that will, for example, reduce the time that victims spend without their phones; the aim is for the police to return devices within 24 hours. Too often, victims feel that they are being investigated and do not feel supported.

A new approach to investigations will be established that places greater emphasis on understanding the suspect’s behaviour, rather than placing undue focus on the victim’s credibility. More rape victims will not need to attend their trial; instead, a cross-examination video can be recorded earlier in the process, away from the courtroom. That is key, as it will mean that the victim’s ordeal—physically, at least—is now over, and she no longer has to dread a courtroom appearance with an alleged perpetrator.

Over £170 million has been invested in victim services that provide more specialist help, such as rape support centres. That includes £27 million of national investment over two years to recruit more independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic abuse advisers to ensure victims can access support. We need to ensure that the people offering that support are specialised and experienced, so that the victims get the right help; if they do not, it can take a lot longer for victims to recover emotionally from the trauma they have faced.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced measures to boost protections for survivors and clamp down on perpetrators. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 ended the automatic halfway release of prisoners sentenced for serious crimes. That includes rapists on standard sentences of four years or more. They will be required to spend longer in custody. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 also creates a legal definition of domestic abuse. It clarifies that abuse can be not only sexual or physical, but financial, verbal or emotional, and, critically, that it is about patterns of abuse over time. Children are recognised as victims, as they also witness the abuse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said.

The definition of “controlling or coercive behaviour” has been extended to include abuse where perpetrators and victims no longer live together. We must remember that it was only in the 1990s that rape within marriage was made illegal. We are still on this journey, and we need to accelerate, because although we are doing a good job, the issue is so multifaceted that it will take a long time to get there.

The Government have introduced changes that will allow victims of domestic abuse more time to report incidents of assault or battery. Previously, prosecutions had to commence within six months of the offence. That requirement has changed to six months from the date the incident was reported, with a time limit of two years to bring a prosecution.

Sentencing must remain independent of the Government. However, this Government have ensured that the criminal justice system has the tools necessary to deal with offenders appropriately. The number of custodial sentences has been going up since 2018. The Government have increased the maximum penalties for stalking and harassment—we have a new offence of stalking—and we have ended the early release of violent and sexual offenders from prison. Sentencing is a vital part of the solution. We will seek to transform the whole of society’s response to prevent offending, support victims and pursue perpetrators, as well as strengthen the systems and processes needed to deliver our goals.

As part of their implementation of the violence against women and girls strategy, Devon and Cornwall police have launched their part of the national communications campaign, Enough. The second wave of the campaign started in October 2022. It focuses on a range of safe ways for a bystander to intervene if they witness violence against women and girls, helps to tackle barriers to intervening, and ensures prompt action. Also, across England and Wales, £55 million has been allocated to communities through the safer streets fund. Projects—some in Truro and Falmouth—include the education of night-time economy workers, extra closed-circuit television, and street lighting. All that helps us to change societal behaviours, so that no one thinks that violence is acceptable, people are given the confidence to go out at night, and victims have greater confidence to come forward.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Lady points out that it is important that women feel safe when they go out at night. An appalling thing that happens time and again—we are trying to do something about it in Parliament—is spiking. Will she join me in condemning spiking as one of the vilest forms of violence against women and girls?

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

The hon. Lady is again absolutely spot on. We have issues with that, particularly in Falmouth, where we have a big student population, as she does in Bath. It takes a lot of agencies to come together to get on top of spiking. She is absolutely right to ensure that it is part of this debate.

Those who commit certain offences with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, including rape, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm with intent, and who are sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of more than four years’ imprisonment are now required to serve two thirds of the sentence in prison before automatic release, instead of half. That is an improvement, but colleagues across the House will agree, having heard me say “four years”, that we should be going for a longer sentence when someone has, in effect, ruined a person’s life.

I support the appointment of a National Police Chiefs Council lead for violence against women and girls to drive a better policing response. It has been announced that we will add violence against women and girls to the strategic policing requirement, meaning that it will be set out as a national threat for forces to respond to alongside other threats such as terrorism, serious and organised crime, and child sexual abuse.

There are a lot of measures there, which are welcome, but a lot more needs to be done. Thirty-five per cent. of violent crimes are alcohol-related. We need to tackle that with more alcohol addiction programmes that target the behaviours that lead to violence, and pre-empt those behaviours at an earlier age. The education of boys—and girls, actually—at an appropriate age is a way to try to change inherited behaviours. We need to get better at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) on securing this debate and leading it in such a comprehensive way. It is a complicated and difficult issue. It is as old as the ages, and this is the time when we should change it. I am pleased there is cross-party consensus that we need to do more and better, but hopefully we are getting on to the right path to tackle this insidious and awful situation that still continues.

According to Rape Crisis, five in six women who are raped do not report it. Charging and conviction rates are among the lowest ever recorded. In my local authority of Bath and North East Somerset, police have logged a record number of sexual offences. However, the justice system is failing women and girls in this country. It is a well-known national scandal that only 3% of rape cases have led to charges against the perpetrator. If we are to improve sentencing outcomes, we need to improve conviction rates.

Female victims of violence are put under a microscope. They are subjected to what Big Brother Watch describes as “digital strip searches”. Victims fear that they have no choice but to hand over their private data, including social media messages, call records, photos and even things that they have deleted. The Centre for Women’s Justice reported one woman fearing her case would be closed if she refused to provide that very invasive data. She was asked to provide medical and counselling notes over the two-year investigation. That is a disgraceful invasion of privacy, and victims should not be subjected to it. No victim of violence should be put under such scrutiny. The invasive process will only dissuade victims from pursuing their case through the criminal justice system.

The “Operation Soteria Bluestone Year One Report” quoted one officer who believed cases of rape and sexual offences were “pink and fluffy”. He avoided them in favour of burglary and robbery cases. The report also found that some serving officers do not think sexual offences should be a priority for policing. Those officers are more than just bad apples. They are part of a rotten culture of misogyny that undermines sentencing. The Operation Soteria Bluestone report argues that a microscopic focus on victims’ credibility creates

“conditions of virtual impunity for predatory men.”

Women’s Aid has warned that violent men are being handed lenient sentences that do not reflect the severity of their crimes, which we have already heard about. It is not fair to the women who deserve justice. We need a whole system change to shift this victim-blaming culture.

Fortunately, we are seeing some progress in creating that culture shift. I commend the work of Avon and Somerset police in that area. I recently visited the Operation Bluestone team in the police force to see the good work they are doing. By changing their investigative focus from the victim to the perpetrator, they have tripled charge rates and brought more cases to the Crown Prosecution Service. Avon and Somerset police are showing that it is possible with a dedicated, well-resourced team and the right leadership. Unfortunately, the team is constrained by the risk aversion of the wider criminal justice system, with charges only brought against a perpetrator when there is a guaranteed conviction. When I visited the police, I heard that they were focused on putting a very solid case forward to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that they got a conviction, but the CPS said, “Bring more cases to court, even if the chance might be 50:50, because if we have more cases coming to court, we have more cases that can possibly lead to a proper conviction.”

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

My concern—and I am happy to hear the hon. Lady’s side of this—is that if the evidence is not conclusive and a case gets put forward to the CPS, there is a potential for the victim to have to go through the trial only to not get a conviction. I can see both sides of the story.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. This is a good debate about how we best get justice. I totally understand the trauma that victims face if they have to go through repeated processes and there is not a firm conviction at the end. That can be very traumatising, but there seems to be evidence that we get to more perpetrators, and that is what we need to do. We must get the message out to violent men that we are going to go after them.

It is important that we follow exactly how this works. I understand that there are pilots of specialist courts for these types of crime, where victims are treated much more sensitively, with an understanding of the trauma they are facing. For that reason, these specialist courts are so important, and I hope the Minister will talk about how they work and how we can learn from good practice.

Avon and Somerset police is showing what is possible with a dedicated, well-resourced team and the right leadership. Unfortunately, as I said, the team is constrained by the risk aversion of the wider criminal justice system, which means that cases with substantial evidence often get overlooked, allowing perpetrators to escape justice. Another thing that I learned during my three hours with Avon and Somerset police was that if there is such a focus on the victim, it gives time to the perpetrator to eradicate all their evidence. That is not only unfair; it adds insult to injury in these cases.

The police—certainly Avon and Somerset police—have learned from that and are changing the culture. They are also incredibly data-focused. As I understand it, by going back through historical data, they can now identify repeat offences that previously could not be captured. Avon and Somerset police is doing a wonderful job, and I wish that everybody in this room had a police force that did so well.

One step forward would be to expand the pilot of specialist courts, which would help to clear case backlogs and ensure that victims’ experiences are respected. These changes are essential for women and girls to receive proper justice. I am following the progress of the Ministry of Justice pilot programme with interest, and I am really interested to hear from the Minister about it.

Women and girls need to know that violent and abusive perpetrators are being brought to justice. As it stands, women are not getting the justice they deserve. Sentencing is part of the problem, but to even get to that stage, women must be given the confidence that the system is not stacked against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a range of measures, including a new wider statutory definition of domestic abuse, which recognises all forms of abuse beyond physical violence. It also created a new criminal offence of non-fatal strangulation, extended the offence of sharing private sexual photographs and films with the intent to cause distress—so-called revenge porn—and extended the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour to cover post separation. The majority of those measures are already in force.

Some hon. Members have alluded to the Online Safety Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament. There are some challenges with the scope of that Bill; parts of the Law Commission’s report into these offences will not fall within scope, which limits what can be done in this context. However my starting point, notwithstanding the complexity of the Law Commission’s report, is that where we can, where it is within scope and where it is possible—I think the DCMS Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), said this on Report—we should implement at least some of its recommendations in a way that does not inadvertently have negative impacts. It is a complex package, and large parts need to be taken as a whole, but where we can take individual measures and use this legislative vehicle—we all know the challenges of finding a legislative vehicle for a whole package—I am keen that we do that so that we make at least some progress even if it is not 100%.

In the rape review action plan, published in 2021, the Government looked at how the entire criminal justice system responds to rape. We recognised that in too many instances, it simply has not been good enough. I take a particular interest in the rape review action plan, not just because it is a key part of my ministerial portfolio but because when I last covered this portfolio in 2018-19—I was Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle was at the Home Office and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) was Solicitor General—at the direction of the then Prime Minister, we looked at commissioning exactly that. I pay tribute to Emily Hunt for her work on that.

Our ambition was to more than double the number of adult rape cases being referred, charged and reaching court by the end of this Parliament, and we are making steady progress on our ambitions set out in the rape review action plan. The latest data show that the number of cases referred, charged and reaching courts has increased. In April to June 2022, there were 901 adult rape police referrals—more than double the 2019 quarterly average—and suspects charged by the CPS were up by two thirds on the 2019 quarterly average. In July to September 2022—a slightly different period of time—there were 467 adult rape Crown court receipts which, again, is more than double the 2019 quarterly average.

I will touch on two aspects of the comments of the hon. Member for Bath. I will pick up her points about Operation Soteria and Avon and Somerset police in a moment, because I had the privilege of visiting them recently. I would just be a little cautious. She referred to how we guarantee more convictions. The only reason I am a bit cautious is that we cannot guarantee convictions. We can guarantee charges, and I think that is what she meant—bringing more cases to court. I do not think it is the case that the CPS will pursue a case only when there is a guaranteed conviction, because it cannot guarantee that in any case. However, it has to meet the two tests for Crown prosecutors—the evidential test and the public interest test—in order to bring a prosecution. Due to the nature of these offences, those tests can be challenging.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. I am glad that he corrected the record, because I was obviously going a bit free range. It is absolutely true that these institutions are independent. We cannot guarantee anything, but it is about increasing conviction numbers, and that is what we are here to talk about.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I suspected I knew what she meant, but I wanted to be clear for the record. To ensure that victims are adequately supported, the Ministry of Justice is also quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services, which includes funding to increase the number of independent sexual violence advisers, ISVAs, and independent domestic violence advisers, IDVAs, by 300, to more than 1,000 by 2024-25.

Assisted Dying

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I want to thank the tireless campaigners, especially Pauline Carroll from our local Bath branch of Dignity in Dying, who has taken me on a journey over the past five years. Due to her courageous campaigning—she never let go—I gradually changed my mind over this difficult and complex issue, and Pauline is in the Public Gallery today.

The Government have amended the Health and Care Act 2022 so as to fully fund palliative and hospice services in the future. That is very welcome, but it is not enough. Our current law needs to change. One approach should not exclude the other. It is disappointing that no time was given to debate Baroness Meacher’s Bill and that Conservative peers were whipped on 16 March to vote against Lord Forsyth’s proposed assisted dying amendment to the Health and Care Act. It is time to apply honesty and justice to the debate. Constituents of mine have campaigned for years for a safeguarded assisting dying law for mentally competent, terminally ill adults with a six-month prognosis. I do not accept that this is the thin end of a wedge.

Whatever might otherwise be heard, it is a fact that palliative medicine and care has its limitations, even at its most excellent. Figures from the Office of Health Economics in 2019 show that every year, 6,400 terminally ill patients in hospices have horrendous deaths. One of my constituents wrote to me:

“I watched my mother being tortured to death with care, she was in extreme pain and was given the maximum level of pain relief. This only works for a time and between doses she was in agony.”

Those who suggest that palliative care can manage pain are ignoring what happens. In too many cases, pain cannot be alleviated. We should not hide that truth.

It was disappointing to learn in 2021, in a piece of research on end-of-life preferences by my local hospice, that assisted dying was not to be included. The reason given was that it is not legal. We cannot leave out the most pressing topic for end-of-life preference. Some people wish for assisted dying. Discounting it as a patient’s preference from the start is ideologically blinded and suggests that blanket opposition to assisted dying is supported by the hospice movement, for which I otherwise have the greatest respect.

In a BMA survey, 4,500 doctors voted in support of assisted dying legislation, whereby they could assist patients who can voluntarily take life-ending prescriptions under very clear and defined legislation. Recent evidence from a Royal College of General Practitioners survey shows that opposition to such legislation has fallen from 77% to 46%. Here in Parliament, we are falling very far behind public and medical opinion. We continue to force people to suffer a protracted death against their wishes, to spend £10,000 to go to Dignitas at a rate of one a week, or to add to the horrific new suicide statistics from the ONS.

Some terminally ill people will not choose palliative care but will opt for the choice of a safeguarded, doctor-assisted death, and that should be their right. I have gone on a journey to believing truly that prolonging an agonising life is not what I should stand for, and I speak as a Christian. Instead, we should allow for a compassionate death when that is what the dying person wishes for.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Well intentioned attempts to seek a compromise miss the point. They will in effect render nugatory the recommendation made in IRAL—a clear recommendation made by independent and, in the proper sense of the word, disinterested members of that review panel—and will, I am afraid, have the baleful effect of undermining the intention of this House. I am pretty sure that that is not what their lordships really intended. I say to them that it is the clear will of this House that those clauses go through, with the Government amendment, as part of our incremental reform programme that is designed to rebalance our unwritten constitution and strike the right relationship between this elected House and this Parliament and our independent, world renowned judiciary.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, all tabled by Lord Marks in the other place. I appreciate that the Government have made some concessions and I thank the Minister for his meeting with me.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would remove from the Bill the power to make prospective-only quashing orders. They are backed by the Law Society and Justice, and I urge Members across the House to back them too. Judicial review is one of the most powerful tools that an individual has to enforce their rights. Challenging the Government through the courts when they get things wrong is one of the core principles of our parliamentary democracy.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

No; I am conscious of time and Madam Deputy Speaker is anxious that we proceed.

The principle should not be party political but one shared across the House. It is disappointing to see the Government pushing ahead with plans to restrict judicial review by opposing the amendments. Unamended, the Bill is described by the Law Society as “chilling”; clauses 1 and 2 undermine judicial review. Prospective-only quashing orders could be hugely harmful to those seeking justice: they would not only deny redress to someone who had been harmed by a public body’s unlawful action, but actively serve as a disincentive to those seeking justice through judicial review.

Let us imagine a person who had incorrectly been deemed ineligible for carer’s allowance by the Department for Work and Pensions. That person successfully challenges the decision through judicial review. Prospective-only quashing orders would mean that the person did not receive the back payments unlawfully denied to them. Those payments could mean the difference between a person heating their house or going cold, or between eating or going hungry.

To make matters worse, extensive delays in courts mean that decisions could be put off for even longer. Prospective-only quashing orders arbitrarily discriminate between those affected by an unlawful measure before a court judgment and those affected after one. There are numerous examples. In 2017, the High Court ruled that a Home Office policy to deport EU rough sleepers was unlawful and discriminatory. The policy was scrapped. If a prospective-only quashing order had applied, then potentially only those receiving a removal notice would be protected; all those who had already faced removal or had had a removal notice issued against them would still have faced deportation. That would not have been justice.

Important as they are, the damaging effects of prospective-only quashing orders go far beyond individual cases. They damage the basic principle that underpins our democracy: that individuals must have the power to challenge the powerful when the powerful get things wrong. If the Government or public bodies are spared the risk of retrospective legal consequences, the motivation for good decision making is lower. Public bodies will take their chances, particularly in issuing welfare benefits, because the cost of getting things wrong would still be lower than getting them right in the first place. That is bad not only for those seeking redress from the courts but for all of us. It should ring alarm bells for all of us.

The Bill is just another Government programme of constitutional reform that weakens the institutions and rights that hold them to account. We saw that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Government’s voter ID proposals. We Liberal Democrats will continue to stand against any attempts to weaken the institutions and rights that hold the Government and the powerful to account. I urge Members across the House to do the same and vote in favour of Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to all those who have spoken about the Bill today. I have only a short time, so I will briefly canter over the points raised in this important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for recognising that we have made a significant concession on the presumption; we, in turn, are grateful for having been enabled to bring important reforms to judicial review through clauses 1 and 2.

On the issue of judicial review and prospective-only quashing orders, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made a good point to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) in saying that we cannot have it both ways. The Bill gives new powers and flexibility to judges; we should not at the same time fetter judges and try to predict what they would do in individual cases. That is the key point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee, said, this is about giving judges an extra club in the bag—a golf analogy; I said that it was another tool in the toolbox. Whether we use DIY or sport analogies, we all understand that there is an extra tool for the judiciary—more powers and flexibility.

On the issue of Cart JR, my hon. Friend made a really important point. The resource issue is about High Court judges, particularly in the Queen’s bench division, who after all hear some of the most serious cases around the country, not just in London.

I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, and concerns from all hon. Members, when it comes to legal aid. I have previously expressed my strong sympathy—particularly for MPs in the north-west, who have had a long experience around Hillsborough. Of course we are looking at that and other matters.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith is aware of the measures that we have already introduced. Even if we agreed on this measure, the Opposition would surely have to accept that it simply would not be possible for such a significant measure to be introduced at such a late hour in the course of a Bill. Were we to continue to go back and forth on this, we would risk undermining the Bill—and we must not forget that it also contains very important measures on criminal procedure, not least changes in magistrates’ sentencing powers. As soon as those new powers come in, they will start to have an impact on our backlog by ensuring that cases that would otherwise be dealt with in the Crown courts can be heard in magistrates courts. I therefore think it important for the Bill to receive Royal Assent.

As I have said, I am pleased to commend the vast majority of the Lords amendments to Members, but I ask them to join me in disagreeing with Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 5 and 11, and agreeing to the Government’s amendment (a) while disagreeing with Lords amendment 5.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.