Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Rape charges have doubled since 2019. We have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold reforms to deliver swifter justice for all victims, and we are funding a record allocation of sitting days in the Crown court. This Government are spending £350 million on supporting victims of crime this year, and we are determined to do all we can for these victims.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T4. Following on from that, still less than 3% of rape cases result in a charge. It takes 400 days for resolution—painful delays for the victims. We have talked about this for so long, so often. What are the barriers to change?

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The hon. Member raises a really important point. We need investment, structural reform and modernisation—that is, the adoption of technology. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his detailed review. We have got part 1, which suggests to us that structural reform. We are awaiting part 2, which should arrive by the end of the year, which will direct us as to how we can drive efficiency and get swifter justice for all victims, but in particular those of serious sexual offences.

Work of the County Court: Government Response

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

We begin with a Select Committee statement. Andy Slaughter will speak on the publication of the second special report of the Justice Committee, “Work of the County Court: Government Response”, HC 1387, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Andy Slaughter to respond in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement on the Government’s response to the fourth report of the Justice Committee, “Work of the County Court”.

Two independent reviews into the criminal justice system, those of David Gauke on sentencing and Sir Brian Leveson on the criminal courts, identified the crises in our prisons and criminal courts, and suggested solutions for the Government to address, including in legislation. The Committee welcomes the reviews, but there is an absence of an equivalent review into civil justice.

Our report called for a root-and-branch review of the county court, including a sustainable plan for reducing the systemic delays and inefficiencies we found. We are disappointed that the Government have rejected that recommendation, although pleased that they have adopted almost all the other recommendations in the report and that their rationale for rejecting an independent review is that our report sets out a detailed blueprint for action. The 17 recommendations that the Government have accepted focus on the most pressing issues facing the court.

The county court is the principal forum for delivering civil justice in England and Wales. It is where millions of our constituents, and businesses large and small, encounter the justice system, but, as our inquiry found, it is a system in crisis. I echo the Minister’s thanks to all who contributed to our inquiry and report; the many people and organisations that submitted written evidence and gave oral evidence; and those who contributed to our roundtable and welcomed us on our visits.

I also pay tribute to my predecessor as Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC, the former Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, under whose leadership the inquiry began in October 2023. Following the Dissolution of Parliament and the general election, the current Committee agreed to continue this important piece of work and press the Department on the performance of the county court.

The county court hears a vast array of cases, from the recovery of personal and corporate debt to landlords’ recovery of property and personal injury claims. In 2024, it heard more than 1.7 million claims. However, the average time for a small claims case to reach trial now exceeds 50 weeks, and for more complex claims the delay is even longer—more than 79 weeks. The evidence we received was deeply concerning. The length of delays is resulting in cases being settled at an undervalue.

Despite the county court being a single unified court, the length of delay depends on a court user’s postcode. We found that such regional differences are severe and result in a postcode lottery. Courts in London and the south-east are some of the worst affected, with examples of cases being delayed by more than two years. The Civil Justice Council told us that when all courts were ranked by their average delay, four fifths of the worst performers were in London and the south-east. In its response, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service notes that it publishes regional data that can be analysed by court, but we did not find any evidence of HMCTS sharing areas of good practice based on this data or of curiosity as to why any differences across England and Wales are occurring.

Our overarching conclusion was stark: the county court is a dysfunctional operation that fails to adequately deliver civil justice across England and Wales. The issues in London and the south-east typify issues faced across the county court. Behind the weeks of delays is a picture of insufficient judicial capacity, high staff turnover and inadequate training to support court users effectively. We found that the civil judiciary is no longer an attractive profession, and we were told of the poor working conditions and administrative burdens that the role now requires. Both the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls agreed that there was an overdependence on fee-paid judiciary to plug the gaps of insufficient judicial recruitment.

We also heard that court staff are overstretched and poorly paid, with high turnover and use of agency staff undermining the efficiency of an already strained system. Court users felt unsupported by staff who could not provide updates on cases, while the centralised phone lines and inboxes were often left unanswered. That is simply not good enough. Those issues are symptoms of a wider delay. We put it to the Department that such symptoms must be addressed urgently if meaningful change was to be achieved. We recommended that any future review must include an in-depth assessment of staff recruitment and retention, including workload, capacity and regional disparities. We also recommended that the review look at the judicial offer. We are pleased the Government have accepted those recommendations.

As part of our inquiry, we visited Northampton county court, the Civil National Business Centre and the central London county court. What was particularly shocking was the poor condition of all those buildings. Our report highlighted the deteriorating physical state of the county court premises, with reports of asbestos, broken heating, leaking roofs and rat and insect infestations. The significant disrepair of the estate impacts staff morale and disrupts court operations, causing yet further delays. There are also problems with accessibility for those with disabilities. I take this opportunity to thank the court staff across England and Wales for their commendable efforts to operate an already crumbling system in such conditions.

In August 2023, £220 million of capital investment was announced, to be spent solely on the court estate across both criminal and civil jurisdictions. We are pleased that the Government have agreed to provide the Committee with a breakdown of how that funding was spent and how much, if any, was directed to the county court estate. We are also pleased to hear of recent capital projects at Taunton, Barnet and Norwich. It remains clear, however, that these projects and previous funding fall well short of what is needed to address years of chronic under-investment across the court estate.

I turn to other areas of funding. Legal aid was originally introduced to ensure access to justice. Through successive reforms, its scope has been reduced, leading to an increase in litigants in person. Self-represented parties usually do not have a legal background and struggle with procedural rules and court practice. In 2019, the Ministry of Justice recognised that litigants in person continued to require greater support in navigating court procedure, but little has changed. The Committee has embarked on a major review of access to justice, but in the absence of more funding for representation, more must be done to help litigants in person navigate the system.

In 2016, HMCTS launched a £1 billion project called the reform programme. It aimed to modernise the court and tribunal systems and transform them through digitisation. However, the project was continually modified and reduced by HMCTS and its timetable extended four times. It finally concluded in March this year. The reform programme was meant to bring end-to-end digitisation to the county court. By March 2025, it had achieved that in only 23% of cases. In practice, the reform programme delivered only two services solely for use in the county court: the damages claims portal and the online civil money claims service, both of which have faced heavy criticism. We heard of the dual running between new and old systems, a failure to take on feedback from practitioners and the continued and successive reliance on paper, adding unnecessary costs to the taxpayer and leaving an analogue system in a digital age.

We concluded that the reform programme was ultimately over-ambitious and under-delivered. The majority of the civil justice projects were de-scoped, culminating in a fragmented digital system. We recommended that HMCTS review all de-scoped work and prioritise its digitisation to bring a true end-to-end digital service to the county court. We are pleased that, in their response, the Government confirmed that such a review has taken place. A digital county court would offer the opportunity to integrate artificial intelligence early on. We welcome the Government’s AI action plan for justice and commitment to AI in encouraging mediation, which aligns with our own conclusions and recommendations.

Our report concludes that the county court is the Cinderella of the justice system, beset by delays, a crumbling estate and a failed attempt at digital reform. The Government response fails to reassure us that the MOJ has a concrete plan to improve civil justice comparable to Sir Brian Leveson’s and David Gauke’s reviews into the prisons and the criminal courts. In the absence of an equivalent independent review, we hope our report can provide a blueprint to reduce the systemic delays and inefficiencies that plague the system. The county court is where justice is most often sought by our constituents. It must not be allowed to fail them.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that we have to finish the statement at 1.50 pm. Anyone who wishes to speak, please bob—including the Minister, if she wishes to ask a question. Please keep comments short, and Members can only ask one question.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

The report to which the Government are responding outlines that the county court is in complete crisis. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, the county court is where the majority of our constituents will encounter the justice system, and it is the Cinderella service of the justice system. Does he agree that it is under pressure and experiencing significant operational problems, that the state of disrepair of the buildings is absolutely emblematic of a system that is completely in crisis, and that more must be done to repair and reinstate these buildings? It is totally unfair that we should ask court staff, be that the judiciary or the staff who back up the judges, to work in those circumstances. It is appalling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, as I have already put on the record. Without making this too cosy, it gives me confidence that my hon. and learned Friend, as the Courts Minister, is seized of this issue and understands its seriousness. That came across in the evidence she gave to the Committee, and she has the background and skills to ensure that change happens. That gives us a lot of confidence.

On my hon. and learned Friend’s specific point, yes, I concede that there are some early indicators of improvements. We would like to see that continue over the years to come. We are very conscious of and aware that—this is obviously no fault of this Minister or this Government—there has been a very long process of decline, which means the climb out will be quite slow. We want steady progress along the way. As the Minister says, the report identifies many problems, but the digitalisation one is crucial. I hope we can soon see the new programme for that, because that is how the courts will become efficient, usable and customer friendly. I know it was tried in good faith under the reform programme, but we have to be honest and say that that has largely failed. The ball is now in the Minister’s court to try to succeed.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Thank you. That ends the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member seems to be the last person defending the last Conservative Government on prisons and law and order. The truth is that over 14 years, they built 500 prison places; in 14 months, this Labour Government have built 2,500 places. We are fixing the mess that they left behind.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Voices—a domestic abuse charity in Bath—has created a guide to family court proceedings to support survivors to navigate the family courts without legal representation. The pilot was rolled out in the south-west and in Yorkshire. Will the Government work with Voices to roll it out nationally?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to meet Voices to discuss that guidance. We have been working with organisations like the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru to ensure that victims and survivors have the best support available when they are navigating the family court process.

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.