Assisted Dying

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Guardian is not known for its conservative zeal on any campaigning issue, but in a brilliant article on 7 April, Sonia Sodha outlined some things that I think should be compulsory reading for anyone engaging in this debate. She deals with the issue of coercion and she comments to the effect that we are in a day and age when coercive control is the norm for many in relationships. She blows a hole through the notion that we are in a free society to make these decisions. Many in our society are in fact not free at all. They are coerced, subject to conditioning and influenced by what becomes wrongly called the new cultural norm in our society.

One third of suicides of females in the United Kingdom are related to intimate partner abuse—just think about that. We have all read the stories, seen the court reports and heard from our constituents about coercive and abusive control of females in our society: “I hate you”; “You’re not worthy of my love”; “Your children hate you”; “Are you still alive?” We know what that does to people and what it drives them to do. It controls them and creates a very ugly environment for them to live in. That type of abuse is all too prevalent in our society. The elderly are similarly abused: “Mum had a good life, you know”; “You know, they’re done, really”; “It’s going to be very costly to keep them in this health service.” All that pressure builds.

All those people who tell us that there is no coercion, anti-disability prejudice, emotional abuse or financial abuse in this society are wrong: there is, and all those factors influence people to say, “Maybe I should end my life.”

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether a doctor who diagnoses a terminal illness is part of that manipulative coercion?

[Ian Paisley]

That is actually a brilliant point, because I want to turn to the issue of safeguards. Some Members have said, “There are going to be brilliant safeguards,” yet every single one of them has told me and this House over the years how rubbish and useless the law is—how it has failed here and is deficient there. Yet they say we are going to come up with the best, most brilliant, most wonderful law on this matter that no one has ever seen before—on this occasion, we will achieve it. The very same people who tell us that we will have safeguards tell us every single day that they cannot create those sorts of safeguards.

Look at what happened in Canada. It was said in 2016 that its legislation would have a very narrow scope, but that narrow scope has turned into discussions about disability, sick children and chronic mental illness. Those are all now within the purview of the Canadian law, but of course they were never supposed to be.

I think we are doing a huge disservice to palliative care and to the doctors and nurses who care, give their life to this and want to see compassion at the end of life. I believe, as some Members have said, that there should be a national conversation about this issue. It should be a long debate, because we really need to get into the weeds of the matter, but to think that because some people have signed a petition, suddenly this nation is ready to make the health service the service that will result in the end of people’s lives is folly, and we should avoid it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I am grateful to speak on this important issue, and it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).

The supporters of the petition want to alleviate suffering at the end of life. That is a commendable motivation, and something we can all agree on. However, making it legal for doctors to help people to kill themselves is simply not the answer. It is so important that we are all clear about what we are talking about today: we are dealing with assisted suicide, not assisted dying. We need to be clear, because politicians and the public need to know what they are being asked to consider. We are all in favour of helping people in their dying moments, comforting them and relieving their pain, but that is categorically different from bringing in a law that says that killing yourself is an acceptable thing to do.

Like many today, I find this topic emotional to deal with. On 11 June last year, my dad passed away aged 66, having suffered from cancer for almost five years. Loved beyond measure, my dad had great faith and never feared dying because he knew he was going to his heavenly home, but his cancer was absolutely horrendous. It was a thief, and it caused him immense pain and suffering, particularly in the last years of his life, but despite the suffering my dad knew there was an appointed time for him—for his home-calling—and that it was not for him or any other to decide on that time.

The palliative and cancer care that my dad received was exceptional. With further investment, such care could be even better. I speak today not as someone who has not experienced a loved one’s suffering from terminal illness—I know the journey, but I also know the one thing that these people do not need is the law telling them that their lives are not worth living or that they are costing too much. We need to tell such people that they are valued, that they are important, and that we care for them—no matter the cost. We must put our money where our mouth is and ensure that all those who need it can access high-quality, specialised palliative care.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing her story, which I understand is very personal. Does she not accept, though, that the choice her father made would never be taken away from him by changing the law? The choice for some would be to end their life, but the choice for those happy to continue their life until it came to an end would never be taken away from them.

[Carla Lockhart]

As we have heard and as I will go on in my speech to say, when the law is introduced it is expanded and the potential safeguards are not safeguards at all—it is a slippery slope. By investing in social care, by continuing to be a world leader in palliative care, and by being a society that respects life and upholds the dignity of the elderly and of people with disabilities, we can give hope to the hopeless and create a society where assisted suicide is not needed.

The consequences of introducing assisted suicide are not a matter for speculation. The practice has been implemented in other countries not unlike ours, and when assisted suicide is permitted, it is a slippery slope. Whenever assisted suicide has been legalised, however tight the initial safeguards and however sincere the assurances that it will be a narrowly defined law for rare cases, the practice has rapidly expanded.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, and to bring the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill to Committee.

Clause 1 will amend section 197 of the Licensing Act 2003, “Regulations and orders”, by deleting subsec-tion (3)(d), deleting the cross-reference to subsection (3)(d) in subsection (4) and deleting subsection (5). The effect of those deletions will be to change from affirmative to negative the parliamentary procedure for a licensing hours extension order, meaning that the Home Secretary and Ministers will have powers to make licensing hours extension orders without the long parliamentary approval process that is currently in place.

Love for our pubs is strong across all our constituencies. If there is one thing guaranteed to unite us, it is sporting and royal events. We tend to gather for those events in our local pubs, because they are the beating heart of our communities. As hon. Members will know, such events do not always take place when our pubs and hospitality venues are open, which is why the 2003 Act makes two provisions for licence extension.

First, individual licensed premises can apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice. Each application costs £21 and takes a minimum of five working days to be approved. That provision is not designed for scenarios in which a large number of venues across the country wish to extend their licensing hours at short notice and at the same time, so the 2003 Act makes a second provision under section 172, which enables licensing extensions for

“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.

That allows the Government to make a blanket relaxation order applicable to all premises in England and Wales, specifying the dates and times of the relaxation and not exceeding four days.

Such orders, which are made under section 197 of the Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure and need approval from both Houses of Parliament. Best practice is for the Home Secretary to complete a public consultation and then for both Houses to debate the order, but that can take up to six months to implement. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the process has been used for the coronation of His Majesty the King, the 90th birthday and platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty, the 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, the 2014 FIFA World cup and the Euro 2020 final in 2021.

Last summer, our whole country was immensely proud of our Lionesses reaching the women’s World cup final. As hon. Members will recall, we found out only four days before the match that the Lionesses had made the final, which was taking place on a Sunday in Sydney with an 11-hour time difference. The match kicked off at 11 am, when many pubs were just opening their doors. There was no time for them to apply to their local authority for a TEN and, because Parliament was in recess, there was no mechanism for the Government to issue a blanket extension. Our communities and pubs missed out on all that pre-match excitement and much-needed extra revenue.

Clause 1 will allow the Home Secretary or Ministers to make an extension order in similar situations without going through the costly, overly bureaucratic, time-consuming and restrictive process that exists now. Clause 2 simply states that the Bill will come into force on the day of Royal Assent and will extend to England and Wales only. As no amendments have been tabled, I hope and am confident that Committee members will agree to clauses 1 and 2.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to add a few words of support for the Bill from the Liberal Democrats and myself.

In Bath we love our pubs as much as anybody else. I am sure that we have all heard from the hospitality sector in our constituencies about how tough the past few years have been. We are lucky to have a thriving hospitality sector in Bath, but businesses still face many challenges.

Clause 1 is integral to preventing pubs from missing out again on opening early, as happened when the Lionesses reached the World cup final last summer. In Bath we have Bath Rugby and Bath City football club, of which I am a fan. Our women’s team is doing very well, too; it is always good to have an opportunity to praise them and to repeat our admiration for what all our women’s teams achieve.

The change from the affirmative to the negative procedure is important because sporting events often happen in the summer when Parliament is not sitting. A change in licensing procedure would have enabled many pubs in Bath to open earlier during the women’s World cup final, allowing fans to take in the atmosphere before the game and allowing the pubs to take in more profits. However, the Bill will fix only a small part of the inadequate statutory framework, the basic flaws of which have, if anything, been compounded by subsequent piecemeal amendments. The House of Lords Liaison Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny follow-up report in 2022 found that flaws in the licensing system remained unresolved and that significant reform was required.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for this Bill, which will go some way towards improving the law. However, we need to take another look at the licensing system and consider whether it is fit for purpose.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

As always, Mrs Murray, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields on corralling such support for the Bill: it is rare to hear such a strong outpouring of unanimity across the House, but on this topic I think we are all on the same page.

The hon. Member has done a very good job of explaining the statutory background, the context in which such orders have been used, and how the Bill will enable the power in section 172 of the 2003 Act to be exercised: it will amend section 197 of the Act to change the procedure from affirmative to negative, so that the power can be used quickly, even when Parliament is not sitting, in the event that one of the home nations teams reaches a final. Some people may say that that is more a triumph of hope over expectation, but hopefully there will be many occasions to use the power in the years ahead as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do well in various tournaments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I am happy to confirm that the hon. Member has put it correctly. As she says, the power is designed for exceptional circumstances where at short notice—I stress “at short notice”—something happens like a team getting into a final that takes place only four or five days later. Obviously there can be more thorough planning for things like the Olympics, which we know about five or 10 years in advance. The Bill is for exceptional circumstances. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation of the position.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Has this short discussion not illustrated my point that we should look more widely at changing the licensing regime, because it is not really fit for purpose? We now live in a global world, and sometimes there are events, even if they are planned, that do not fit in with our licensing regime.

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure I agree. When there is plenty of notice, as with the Olympics, there is plenty of time to plan and make arrangements if appropriate. The Los Angeles Olympics are a number of years away. As I say, I am not convinced that having all the pubs and bars open until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning for three or four weeks over the summer would be a good idea.

There is plenty of time to make such arrangements under the current licensing regime. The only problem that we have found is with very short-notice situations, particularly when Parliament is not sitting. With the men’s Euros semi-final, Parliament was sitting and it was possible to make an arrangement at short notice. In my view, the circumstances that arise when Parliament is not sitting are the only lacuna. All other circumstances can be accommodated within the current licensing regime.

I have spoken for rather longer than I had intended, as I wanted to take interventions, but my voice is now getting a bit croaky. I conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for South Shields again on taking the initiative and shepherding the Bill with such charm and aplomb.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I am not sure that the Government are able to compel such widespread disclosure—perhaps the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority might have a view on such things. Both sides of my family are of immigrant stock: my mother came to the UK in the 1960s, and my father’s family in 1066. This country has benefited from controlled immigration in a fair system, where people who play by the rules are rewarded and we say no to those who refuse to play by the rules.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am a legal migrant, too. Bath has a vibrant hospitality industry that caters for local people and tourists from all over the world, but many of our hotels, restaurants, bars and pubs are already struggling to find enough staff or are under threat of reduced working hours and closure. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the proposed new salary thresholds and measures to reduce legal migration do not worsen those staff shortages?

[James Cleverly]

We liaise very closely with other Government Departments to ensure that our system, which is transparent and fair, also supports the British economy. We work particularly closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that those who have talent and ambition but who, for whatever reason, are currently unable to fully engage in the job market are enabled to do so. I myself have a background in the hospitality industry, and we want that industry to continue to thrive. It is not the case that we should automatically rely on overseas labour for that; we can have home-grown talent as well.

Net Migration Figures

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is entirely wrong about that. The Illegal Migration Bill creates a fast and simple scheme whereby those who come here illegally, in small boats or otherwise, will have their claims processed not in months or years but in days or weeks, and will either be returned home to a safe country such as Albania or sent to a safe third country such as Rwanda. That will break the business model of the people smugglers by infusing the system with deterrence, and will bring about a substantial reduction in the numbers entering the country in this manner.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In Bath the hospitality sector is a big driver of the local economy, but many of our wonderful hotels, restaurants, bars and pubs struggle to find enough staff, and there is the danger of closure or reduced working hours, which are bad for the economy. The Government’s chaotic approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing immigration targets has completely eroded public trust, including that of employers. When will they come clean with the public, acknowledge that legal migration is driven by the labour market, and listen to employers and others in Bath’s hospitality sector?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady seems to be arguing for significantly higher levels of legal migration than those that we have today. Given that 235,000 work-related visas were issued last year, which is a substantial number, I do not think it wise to advocate a significant further increase. We want to see the numbers coming down.

Illegal Migration Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

If I may, I will make some more progress, but I would be pleased to revert to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in a moment.

Let me turn to the other issue that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised in Committee, which is that of unaccompanied children. Again, we have listened to the points that he and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised. As I have said repeatedly, this is a morally complex issue. There are no simple answers and each has trade-offs. Our primary concern must be the welfare of children, both here and abroad. We need to ensure that the UK does not become a destination that is specifically targeted by people smugglers specialising in children and families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Nobody in this House would disagree that we need to stop the people smugglers, but I worry that the Government focus too much on the people smugglers, rather than on the damage that is caused to vulnerable children who are already traumatised. The whole process that the Government are proposing is retraumatising already deeply traumatised young people.

[Robert Jenrick]

On the broader point, let me reassure the hon. Member that, as a parent, I, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister gave these questions a great deal of thought and our motivation was the best interests of children. We do not want to see children put into dinghies and their lives placed in danger. When we do see that, it is a harrowing experience that lives with us. We have to take these steps to ensure that, when we operationalise the scheme at the heart of the Bill, the UK is not then targeted by people smugglers specialising in families and children.

Illegal Migration Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

Exactly. It is very easy to make the case that the Government are making when these are all faceless people, but a couple of months ago, I met an Afghan citizen in the constituency of my friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell). This guy had been waiting 13 months to have his case heard. He had been an interpreter for the British forces in Afghanistan, and we had left him behind. His wife and two children were hiding back in Afghanistan, waiting and rotting. That is not due to the fact that we do not yet have the Bill; it is due to the fact that we have a Government who are incompetent and uncaring when it comes to people who have served our country and whom they have let down badly.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Tim Farron]

I will take one more intervention.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is not an obvious sign of the Government’s failure the fact that only 22 Afghanistan citizens have been resettled under the Government’s resettlement scheme, while thousands are waiting in danger?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

It is certainly true that the promise inherent in the refugee convention—an offer to the world at large, conceived in an era before easyJet, before people going on holiday to any country and before mass migration—must be looked at through a different lens in the year 2023. Many of our international partners are now talking in that way, and we may have to have a debate on a different occasion to talk about the issue more broadly.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Laura Farris]

I am just going to make a tiny bit of progress, because I have not really started and there is not much time.

I want to respond to amendments 131 and 132, which would do slightly different things but have the same effect. I will look at you, Dame Eleanor, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will not be offended if he has to look at my back. Amendment 131 would exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and amendment 132 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 in so far as they may be relevant to decisions taken under this Bill.

I want to say at the outset that I understand the impulse that has brought my hon. Friend here—namely the frustration with the exercise of the rule 39 injunctive relief decision in July, which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West covered so well in her speech. She will know as well as I do that rule 39 is not an inherent part of the European convention on human rights; she said in her speech that it is a rule of the Court.

That decision was taken by a single judge alone. The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out that that is common and standard in injunctive proceedings, but it is none the less somewhat surprising to see that matter go through in the eyes of the High Court, the Court of Appeal here and, finally, the Supreme Court, and then be overturned by the decision of a single judge in Europe. We do not even know who the judge was, but we know that Tim Eicke, our own British judge who sits on the European Court, has never sat as a High Court judge. He is a barrister. I say that with deference to his brilliance, and of course I am not criticising him; that is standard for the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is odd to see our own Supreme Court, with some of the most brilliant justices in the world, being overruled, under a Court rule, by somebody who is probably not of their status. I think that is a true statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am sorry, Dame Rosie.

Many Members have spoken about various safe routes. Many suggestions have been made about how to deal with the small boats. Colleagues have spoken about the legal side of it. If there is any humanity in this Government, they should think about withdrawing the Bill and actually dealing with the small boats, and will they please stop trying to appease populist sentiment?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak to the Liberal Democrat new clauses 3, 4 and 6. I struggle to put into words my dismay about the Bill. I have been listening since the beginning of the debate and, apart from a few Members who have spoken with real insight, Conservative Members cannot hide their frustration that, three years on from Brexit, we still do not control our borders and that we are in fact further away than ever from doing so. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding. Britain is only ever part of a global community—we do not rule it—and we get what we want only through co-operation; we will succeed in stopping illegal immigration only by co-operating, not by breaking international agreements.

No one can be opposed to stopping people traffickers who are exploiting desperate men, women and children, but the Bill is no way to go about that, and it will not be successful in preventing the boats from coming. All that it will achieve is to punish those who least deserve it. Will the Government finally listen to what we on the Opposition Benches have said for such a long time, which is that we must create safe, legal and effective routes for immigration if we are serious about a compassionate and fair system of immigration?

New clause 6 would facilitate a safe passage pilot scheme. New clause 4 would require the Home Secretary to set up a humanitarian travel scheme, allowing people from specified countries or territories to enter the UK to make an asylum claim on their arrival. The only way to ensure that refugees do not risk their lives in the channel is to make safe and effective legal routes available.

My inbox has been full of constituents’ outrage at the Government’s plans to abandon some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In Bath, we have welcomed refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, and we stand ready to do more. Meanwhile, the Government are intent on ending our country’s long and proud history as a refuge for those fleeing war and persecution.

The Home Secretary has been unable to confirm that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Clause 49 allows the Secretary of State to make provisions about interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights; the Law Society has raised concerns that that shows an intent to disregard the Court’s measures and break international law. The Government’s promises that people fleeing war and persecution could find a home in the UK through a safe and legal route must be true and real—they must not promise something that does not happen. Now is the time to put action behind the words. So far the Bill has not even defined what a safe and legal route is; on that, I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).

Let me give one example of why it is so important that we have safe and legal routes: Afghanistan. Just 22 Afghan citizens eligible for the UK resettlement scheme have arrived in the UK. The Minister said that we had taken thousands before the invasion of Kabul, but we are talking about a resettlement scheme set up in 2022, a year ago. Only 22 people have been resettled through that scheme. That is the question—we are not talking about what happened in 2015 or before the invasion of Kabul; we are talking about the safe and legal routes that the Government set up. The reality is that 22 Afghans have been resettled under the scheme, and the Minister cannot walk away from it.

It is a shameful record. Women and girls especially were promised safety, but have been left without a specific route to apply for. We cannot leave them to their fate. Every day we hear about the cruel way the Taliban treat women and girls, who are excluded from education and jobs. They have to do what they want to do in hiding and they are not safe. The Government have promised them safety, but they cannot come. We must ensure that this new promise of safe and legal routes cannot be broken.

The Bill sets out a cap on the number of refugees entering via safe routes, but it does not use a specific figure. There is also no obligation on the Government to facilitate that number of people arriving. The Government’s current record does not inspire confidence. The UK grants fewer asylum applications than the EU average. In 2022, only 1,185 refugees were resettled to the UK, nearly 80% fewer than in 2019. That is why the Government should support new clause 3, which requires the Secretary of State to set a resettlement target of at least 10,000 people each year.

Refugees make dangerous journeys because they are in danger. If we are serious about stopping illegal people trafficking, we must provide safe routes for refugees first, not punish refugees who have the right to be here first. As it stands, the Bill criminalises desperate people making perilous journeys to seek safety—refugees who are coming because they believe they will find sanctuary here. We must show them compassion. We must not show them our backs.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the Secretary of State for being here at the beginning of the debate and the Minister for being here now to hear our contributions. The issue has proven incredibly contentious in this Chamber and on social media. We have heard the views of so many—some more distasteful than others; I say that respectfully. The principle is that we have a clear responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable, but we cannot extend the invitation to everyone, with no questions asked. We need to discuss the steps we can take to perfect our asylum system. I will speak to new clause 6 in relation to safe passage, and to new clauses 24 and 25, which refer to Northern Ireland.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised significant concerns about this Bill in relation to parallels between trafficking, slavery and asylum. The Bill will have an unintended, but nevertheless devastating, impact on victims of modern slavery. The Committee has stated that illegal immigration is often used as a weapon to exploit people for profit, and that criminal gangs are often the ones luring vulnerable people on to boats and into the UK. Some 5,144 modern slavery offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2019, an increase of 51% from the previous year. In addition, poverty, lack of education, unstable social and political conditions, economic imbalances, climate change and war are key issues that contribute to someone’s vulnerability and to becoming a victim of modern slavery. We cannot close the door on genuine victims of trafficking and slavery, and we cannot allow the Bill to undermine the security of victims.

I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on this debate, if I can. According to recent Home Office statistics, nearly 550 people were potentially trafficked into Northern Ireland last year, an increase of 50% from 2021, when the figure was 363. In the past four years, the number of people referred through the national referral mechanism in Northern Ireland increased by 1,000%, so we have an issue—maybe we do not have the numerical amounts that are here on the UK mainland, but for us in Northern Ireland, these are key issues. I also wish to highlight new clause 19, which refers to the Bill’s extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to new clauses 24 and 25, which refer to Northern Ireland taking on three particular provisions relating to trafficking and exploitation. I believe it is important that we have the same opportunity to respond in a way that can help.

There is no doubt that detention due to asylum is going to have an incredible impact on some migrants. We are often too quick to group asylum seekers under the same label, forgetting that a large proportion of the women and young children who come here illegally come from war-torn countries, where they have been ripped away from their families and displaced, with no other option but to get out and to make the best of a potential life somewhere else. There are real, genuine cases out there—there are families who need legitimate help—and as a big-hearted country, I believe that we have a duty to provide that help.

Under the new legislation, the Home Office would be given new powers to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children, but those provisions only apply to England. I ask that they be extended to other areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as is being considered. When it comes to detention, there is no doubt that we do have to compare circumstances. There is a difference between those people who I just mentioned—the women and children who are displaced—and those who come with no children and no family, and who are usually young. They have the ability to build a new life elsewhere if possible, because they are healthy, whereas for women and children who have been forced out, detention policies need to be different.

To conclude, in order to keep within the time limit that others have adhered to, I am in support of some of the aspects of this needed Bill. I respect its contents and the Minister’s efforts to come up with a solution that strikes the right balance, but I think we all need some assurances about how it addresses the issues of modern slavery and trafficking, which too many people are forced into each year. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State, the Minister and their Department will do all they can to ensure that this issue is dealt with, but given the sheer volumes and the impact that they are having on our country—on our great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I urge that this be dealt with as a matter of national security and a matter of urgency: the quicker we get it sorted, the better. Let us also ensure that those people who are genuine asylum seekers are given the opportunity to come to this country. That is something I wish to see happen as well.

Change of Name by Registered Sex Offenders

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate—I supported her application—and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. There is cross-party support for tackling this issue. Although I might repeat some of the things that have been said, I want to add my voice to this important debate and support the victims of the terrible crimes that are committed because of a legal loophole, which we in Parliament can fix.

The stories of crimes committed by sex offenders who have changed their names should be a wake-up call for us all. The current name-change process is very poorly regulated and not fit for purpose. Although it is a crime for a sex offender to change their name without notifying the police, the onus to do so lies solely with the offender. As we have already heard, thinking that those guys are going to be honourable and honest is just a mistake. We should not let them get away with it. That creates a legal loophole that makes the reporting system unreliable, meaning that a sex offender can obtain a new legal document to hide their identity and evade justice. The loopholes are used deliberately by sex offenders to continue committing their crimes. That must stop.

I commend Della Wright for her courageous campaigning to close the loophole. It undercuts so much of the progress that we have made in tackling sex offences if perpetrators can just wipe out their past. It renders the sex offenders register, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and DBS checks totally ineffective. Sex offenders should not elude the authorities.

One sex offender changed his name after his release from prison following convictions for sexual assaults against children. His background went undetected despite two encounters with Lincolnshire police and one with social services, and he went on to brutally strip and murder 13-year-old Sandy Hadfield. What a terrible tragedy. Another registered sex offender was able to change his name by deed poll. He moved to Spain, became a teacher and worked as a live-in au pair, despite being barred from working with children. He was arrested only after the school found hidden cameras in its toilets. Where were the checks?

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of childhood trauma, I am aware of the lifelong consequences faced by children who have experienced sexual abuse. Many children carry their traumatic experiences into later life. I want to acknowledge the people sitting in the Public Gallery who have faced those terrible traumas. Those who experience childhood trauma are twice as likely to develop depression and three times as likely to develop anxiety disorders. Again, we must commend all survivors of childhood trauma for the courage and strength with which they continue to live their lives. It is a stain on our country that one in six children has been sexually abused. We need to protect children, and closing the loophole will make it harder for dangerous sex offenders to repeat their crimes.

Ultimately, there is an issue in the wider criminal justice system. Charges were brought in only 4% of recorded rape cases last year. It is highly likely that people who have committed such a crime are walking among us without our knowing. Five women in six do not report their rape to the police. Given that so many survivors of sexual and domestic violence are denied justice, is it any surprise that reporting rates continue to be so low? If we want to encourage women to come forward, they need to be sure that violent and abusive perpetrators are brought and will continue to be brought to justice. It is horrifying to think that even if a woman gets her rapist convicted, they may still escape the consequences and go on to commit a horrific crime after changing their name.

Enabling sex offenders to change their names means that they can lie about their past. The Safeguarding Alliance reports that offenders have used name changes to hide their backgrounds from their new partners and children. I cannot imagine the fear of learning that your partner is not who you thought they were. The lack of a joined-up approach to tackling name changes means that key details of an offender’s past can be missed. There should be a national centralised sex offenders register maintained by the Home Office to ensure an interlinked and joined-up approach is taken to sex offender management. We must place responsibility for name changes on the relevant authorities to ensure that offenders are not able to slip under the radar.

I, too, welcome the Safeguarding Alliance’s proposal of a tagging system for sex offenders’ passports and driving licences, which would stop offenders using official documents to escape justice. Sex offenders should not be able to use new names to secure DBS checks that allow them to work with children and vulnerable people. As we have heard, they do that deliberately, using a job to get to children, young people and, indeed, women, to commit their heinous crimes. There must be a system in which their crimes are flagged when they are applying for employment.

We must take our obligations to victims seriously. We cannot say that we have delivered justice for survivors if the perpetrators are left to secretly carry on their crimes. Abuse never leaves its victims, so sex offenders should never be able to walk away from their crimes in a way that leaves them free to commit new appalling crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

It seems baffling. I think that if we were to go and speak to anybody on the Clapham omnibus—if we were to go outside and speak to any member of the public—they would not believe that that is the case in most circumstances. They would be absolutely horrified.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) called on Home Office Front Benchers to publish the documents, something that we have heard again and again in this House. It is not acceptable that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), our great champion, has forced those documents and that assessment and review to exist, Members in this place cannot see them. I join in those calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.

I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), because he has been trying to tackle this issue in this place since, I think, the year I was born. [Hon. Members: “Ouch!”] I realise that that sounds like a terribly backhanded compliment, but it is not intended that way at all—when he was citing some of those cases, I was thinking, “I was five then.” He has announced his departure from this place, and he will undoubtedly be remembered for championing the rights of children during his time in this House, specifically those who have suffered from sexual offences. The fact that the legislation on paedophilia that we are all familiar with did not necessarily exist all those years ago, but now exists, is in no small part down to the hon. Gentleman’s work in this place. He is absolutely right to point out that these offenders are manipulative: in the case of Joanna Simpson, which I highlighted, the reason why a manslaughter charge was given rather than a murder charge was the adjustment disorder caused by a divorce—that was the manipulation used. It is terribly hard to adjust to divorce, and almost everybody in the country who has to do that ends up murdering somebody— I don’t think.

There is that level of manipulation, and how our state agencies in fact back that manipulation up. There is an opportunity today, by supporting this motion, to stop some of that manipulation and to stand in its way. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) reminded us why this issue matters, its importance, the lifelong trauma suffered by the victims of these crimes and how we should never forget that. There are victims here today, and many of their names have rung out. If only all the victims, such as Sandy, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), could be here today to listen to this debate. It is not okay that things have taken this long.

I will finish up my remarks. Like the hon. Member for Bolsover, I also changed my name. I did it online. I went online and I changed my name, and a woman called Angela in my office just signed it—that was it. That was what it took. I paid £36. It is probably more now, as inflation has gone up since then. It took absolutely no effort whatever to change my name. It was considerably easier than getting a driving licence or applying for other things. It was very easy for me to change my name with no effort and no check whatever, so I know how easy the process is. We have to make sure that this easy liberty —I am not saying it should not be easy for me, although I was stunned by how easy it was—which I may very well be entitled to, is used with caution, if at all, in the case of those on the sex offenders register. It should certainly never ever be able to be used without the proper processes and systems that flag things up.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I, too, have changed my name—to make it shorter, to be honest; my name was too difficult. Does the hon. Member agree that we would be happy to go through a more complicated process if that would protect and safeguard young people?

[Jess Phillips]

I agree. I would have been more than happy to undertake a much more robust process to change my name from the good Northern Irish name of Trainor to Phillips. It would have been no bother to me if it had taken a lot more effort. Many other things in life take a lot more effort when they should not.

Leaving the EU: UK Language Schools

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huq]

There are loads in Ealing as well, although a lot less than there used to be. Local householders—as the Minister will know as a local—also get leaflets through the door asking for a spare room or two, saying there are posts going as host families and promising pretty decent money. The reason for all that is English language teaching and English language schools. It is a phenomenon that peaks in the summer months. They offer an all-round experience, typically to teenagers, for a number of weeks. Students get the full immersion: an English breakfast with a typical English family, English lessons during the day, perhaps a spot of early evening work as a barista or pulling pints before dinner en famille and then a bit of sightseeing and cultural programme built in as well—maybe visiting London, Oxford and Southend.

Either side of the weekend I have had an insight into that subculture. I visited two English language schools in Ealing: Edwards Language School and West London English School. They tell me that the two weeks from now are set to be the busiest of the year for them. However, the story is mixed. At WLES, where I was yesterday, I saw multiple classes. It has outgrown the couple of rooms it takes in an office block on Uxbridge Road. Edwards Language School is in a large Victorian house on the same road—although the road is called something else at that point. It used to span two houses, but it is in one now. It has halved in size. The school was set up by lecturers from the University of West London, which is also in my constituency, 30 years ago. It then got swallowed up by a chain, and that chain’s operations in Brighton have not survived.

I keep saying what used to be because although in 2019, the sector’s last normal year of trading, there were 550,000 students, half of them under 18, contributing £1.4 billion into the UK economy, supporting 35,000 jobs and underpinning the wider £20 billion education market, it feels dangerously at risk of decline because of the end of freedom of movement and visa changes. After I spoke to the trade body English UK, and exchanged emails with the Association of British Travel Agents, the Tourism Alliance and the British Educational Travel Association—they have all been falling over themselves to brief me for this short debate—some startling figures emerged.

The BETA says that between 2019 and 2022 the number of student groups coming from the EU dropped by 84%. In Ealing, not that long ago, I would have had a choice of five different schools to visit and sample, but two of them—one had been there since 1980—have completely bitten the dust. A third exists on paper as an online operation, leaving only its Wimbledon branch; the Ealing branch has gone.

For context, while West London College, which has an Ealing campus, offers some English language teaching, and some universities offer it too, the bulk of the provision locally and across the country comes from private businesses. That means they have sometimes been viewed with suspicion, although the British Council accreditation—the regulatory framework that they have to go through—is among the most stringent in the world. To attain trusted status is not cheap either; it weighs in at £20,000.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was first.

[Wera Hobhouse]

As a former language teacher in a secondary school, I take a huge personal interest in the subject. Language schools are an important part of Bath’s rich tourism industry, which depends on language schools and young people visiting, so it is important to address that issue with the Minister. Does the hon. Lady agree that the passport requirement for each individual student creates a barrier? We need to ask for a new youth travel scheme or collective passports to overcome some of the barriers for such fantastic businesses in my constituency. Without them, we could see the collapse of that industry.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Lady, who is from the lovely city of Bath and is a polyglot herself, is completely right. When I was a kid in 1984, we did a trip to Le Touquet on a group passport of that nature. The teacher had it and everyone was waved through. I think the kid with slightly dodgy status ducked at the moment when we did the headcount—I am only revealing this now. The hon. Lady is right that we have to find a solution. The majority of European kids under 18 do not have passports, because they travel on ID cards. The Government have said that they will not budge, so that would be a sensible solution. I think Jim Shannon wanted to intervene next.

Public Order Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In addition to what the right hon. Lady has just said, does she agree that the terrible statistics on rape convictions are exactly the reason that rape victims do not come forward, and that the Government should have done a lot more on this?

[Yvette Cooper]

The rape prosecution rate is one of the most shocking figures of all. For only 1.3% of reported rapes to be going to prosecution is totally shameful. The Government had the opportunity to do something about this. Right now in this House, we could have been debating proposals to provide more support for rape victims and to bring in stronger measures to ensure that police forces took action and had specialist rape investigation units in every force, not just in some, yet the Government have chosen not to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We should not be fooled: the measures in this Bill are the very same as those the House of Lords overwhelmingly rejected from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 on the basis that they form a dangerous and blatant power grab that undermines our civil and democratic liberties. The measures include the creation of serious disruption prevention orders that could subject individuals to 24/7 GPS monitoring whether they have been convicted of a crime or not. They include new stop-and-search powers for the police despite a wealth of evidence, as we have heard, that black people are disproportionately targeted. They include a broad, potentially catch-all, new offence of

“being equipped for locking on”,

meaning that someone could face an unlimited fine for as little as carrying a bike lock.

The measures have been described as “draconian”, “authoritarian” and a

“staggering escalation of the Government’s clampdown on dissent”.

They were rightly rejected from the 2022 Act and, even though the ink is not yet dry, the Government are already trying to reintroduce powers that would not be out of place in some of the world’s most repressive regimes. Is this really the kind of country that this Conservative Government want us to be?

It goes without saying that no one should be blocking ambulances from getting where they need to go, which puts lives at risk and does nothing to build public support for a cause. However, the new laws are not about stopping people blocking roads. If the Government really cared about ambulances being delayed, they would be doing far more to tackle the ambulance crisis that is leaving people waiting hours in an emergency. The new laws are about cracking down on the right to peaceful assembly and protest. The police already have the powers they need, as we see when people are arrested for going beyond what is acceptable for a peaceful protest.

The police are not asking for these new powers; they do not even support them. When consulted, senior police officers said that the orders being proposed by this Government would be a “massive civil liberty infringement”. To make matters worse, this legislation will not even be effective. To quote Liberty,

“the Government cannot legislate people into silence”.

If peaceful protest is effectively banned, the likely consequence of this Bill will simply be to push people to seek more urgent routes to protest. All it will do is undermine confidence in our public institutions and in our police at a time when public trust in the police leadership is already fragile.

Without the right to protest, countless hard-earned freedoms would never have been won. From the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships, to employment rights, to women winning the right to vote, the right to peaceful protest has been a force for change time and again. Protest is not a gift from the state to be given and taken at will. It is a fundamental right, and it is the foundation on which any democracy stands. We Liberal Democrats will always stand up for that right.

I add my support to the efforts of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) to amend the Bill to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics. It is a clear and tightly targeted measure that would address the harassment of women accessing healthcare. More than 100,000 women in England and Wales every year have abortions at clinics that are targeted by these groups. Since I last supported this measure in July 2021, three more abortion clinics have been targeted for the first time, leaving more women open to abuse and feeling afraid.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am honestly and genuinely perplexed by the argument about buffer zones. I agree that the harassment of women seeking those services is disgraceful and should not be allowed, but why just them? Why not hospitals in general? Why not places of worship? I understand the sensitivity in that particular situation, but why is it that we object to and are willing to restrict that particular form of protest, but not others?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I support a simple and targeted measure against protests outside clinics that harass women seeking abortion. We can talk about other measures, but it is important to protect women who are already in an extremely vulnerable position from such harassment.

Last week, “Newsnight” ran an alarming story on the difficulty that clinics and local residents face in getting councils to make use of the public spaces protection orders—legislation that Ministers say is the only option. These PSPOs create an unacceptable postcode lottery. Our colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland are prioritising finding a solution to this form of persistent and targeted harassment, and we cannot allow women in England and Wales to be left behind.

I will never support a Bill that goes against our fundamental civil rights and those who do so tonight should be ashamed.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The problem is—and here I follow the advice of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—that the measures will not be a deterrent. All they will do is incentivise many more people to come forward, because this will make them angry and it will cause undue suffering. I am just giving a concrete example of what the good people in my constituency are doing. If Members thought a road was going to be built through their local cemetery, and that their relatives would have to be dug up, I doubt any of them would not join the demonstration. A number of Conservative MPs and councillors did join us.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these draconian measures are a sign of the weakness of a Government who are on the defensive?

[John McDonnell]

I will finish on the motivation in a minute or two.

On stop and search, in my constituency, we have come to terms with the orders that designate certain wards enabling access on the streets for stop and search on the basis of where there are serious drug problems or where there has been a knife attack and so on. People have come to terms with that. Not everyone is supportive of it, but they have come to terms with it. I do not think they would be able to come to terms with the designation of a whole area in my constituency just because there might be a demonstration at Heathrow. It would mean having to designate the whole of the Heathrow villages area. On the issue of suspicion of carrying materials, you would need a police squad outside every shop in the Heathrow villages, because every one of my constituents in those areas could be seen as suspicious when they go to purchase something.

Homes for Ukraine: Visa Application Centres

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely. It should not take that long. We are also clear that people are welcome to travel into a third country, if they can. They do not need to wait in Ukraine for the decision or the paperwork to be granted. Of course, there has been no direct travel between the UK and Ukraine since the Russian attack. Those documents should be issued fairly promptly after the process. As has been touched on, the process that will shortly come on to the fully online system automates much of that and makes it even quicker than the current process.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

A female constituent is sponsoring a young woman who is just 18 and on her own. It took over five weeks for the visa to come through and there is still paperwork that needs to be finalised. That vulnerable young woman is still without protection. Is the Minister not worried that the long delays will increase the risk of trafficking? Is it not an irony that the checks are being done for security reasons, but the Government are facilitating criminality?

[Kevin Foster]

The checks are being done for safeguarding reasons as well, as I have already touched on during this urgent question. We have already blocked some instances where a potential sponsor had serious criminal convictions, which would mean that it would be wholly unsuitable for a vulnerable person to stay with them. We are conscious that we want to take advantage of the great generosity that many people have shown, which is why we have now granted nearly 90,000 visas. We are granting thousands more every day, and we look forward to seeing more people being able to come and take up the offers of sanctuary that people are making.