Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Many points have been made already today, so I will not cover them all. Briefly, I associate myself with the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whose powerful speech summarised the points that many of us wish to make, and those of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose questions have got to the heart of this matter.

This Bill is about many different things, but fundamentally, it is about two: power and trust. It is about the power over life and death, not just over ourselves, because we already have the power to end our own lives—it is called suicide. It is not a crime, and has not been a crime in this country for decades. The Bill is about a different power: the power of the state through its agents to exercise power over life and death. Yes, the exercise of that power will be agreed and approved of in advance, but when the state takes a life, even with consent, that is a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the state. It is a transformation in the way in which power lies, and we should be fully conscious of what is being done.

That is why this debate, frankly, needs a little more honesty. We have heard the blandishments and the warm words of euphemism; we have heard this called assisted dying, but the truth is that it is not assisted dying. Assisted dying is what a hospice already does today—helping people, caring for them and supporting them. This is assisted killing or assisted suicide, depending on which word we choose. Honesty in language is important. If we are not even willing to be honest with ourselves in this place, how on earth can we expect the courts to consider the questions we have debated when they have to look at these cases?

I say to all right hon. and hon. Friends—in a debate like this, we are all friends, because we are all seeking the right answer for our country—that this is the last time we are going to talk about these questions. This is the last time that we are going to have actual authority over the words in this Bill, and no matter what interviews we have heard and no matter what assurances we have been given, today or over the past few weeks, the only thing that matters is the words in black and white in the Bill. Those are the words that will be interpreted by judges for years to come.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not.

Those are the words that will give powers to Ministers and to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her discretion with the most cursory of oversight from this place.

Let us be absolutely clear on what we are choosing to do. Let us be absolutely clear that it is on us—it is our responsibility—to think not just for those who have options and power, and those who will not be intimidated, but for those who will be. We must think of the weak and vulnerable, to whom the Mother of the House referred, and for the communities in our country who already do not trust the health service, reject vaccination, choose not to come early for cancer diagnoses and already have the worst health outcomes. We need to think of them. Choosing to make that gap greater is not just enabling someone to access care, but actively rejecting others in our community who should seek care but will not because of the fear this will raise in their hearts. We need to think really hard about that.

To those who say that there will be no change and that, “This is it; there can be no further change,” I say that the closest legal equivalent to this legislation is the Canadian legislation. The closest legal equivalent to us is the Canadian Parliament. The closest equivalent to the national health service is the Canadian health system. I therefore give you—

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I did answer the question: it did not.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Whatever their ethnic background, my constituents in Rochdale are united in supporting the ancient British principle of equality under the law. I welcome what the Justice Secretary has produced today, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who welcomed the previous attempts at two-tier justice. Does she agree with me that pre-sentence reports should be available for all offenders and should never be linked to ethnicity, culture or faith?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. I wish to see the widest possible use of pre-sentencing reports. It is my job to ensure that the Probation Service is in a position to provide pre-sentencing reports whenever they are required by the court, and that courts have confidence in the reports that they are getting. I will ensure that that is the case.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Texans had similar problems to those we face today, but they had theirs 20 years or so ago. Their system of good behaviour credits incentivises offenders to engage in rehabilitation activity and to get help for their drug addictions, alcohol problems, mental health issues and so on. If offenders engage with that system and get their good behaviour credits, they can earn their way to an earlier parole hearing. It is the definition of a tough system, because it says to offenders, “You have to do something good in order to earn the possibility of an earlier release.” It is a system that is well worth learning from, because the reoffending rates are very low compared with ours. One of the prisons I visited in Texas has a reoffending rate of 17%. I dream of that number for us in this country, because every time we bear down on reoffending, that is cutting crime. It is a strategy for making sure that we have fewer victims in the future. I hope that if whatever proposals we bring forward lead to a reduction in reoffending, the hon. Gentleman will back those proposals.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

In June 2024, in the dying days of the last Conservative Government and after 14 years of their rule, there emerged a shocking statistic: 60% of rape victims were withdrawing from the court process, mainly because of court delays. Is that not a damning indictment of all Governments who have taken power in this country? What is the Lord Chancellor doing to help reduce the number of rape victims taking that awful decision?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the figure that he notes is a damning indictment of the last Conservative Government. The announcement we have made today will bear down on the courts backlog, and it will mean that some rape victims get their cases heard as cases move through the system more swiftly. We have already implemented our manifesto commitment on independent legal advisers, because we know that, in addition to delays, one of the things that causes many rape victims to drop out is inappropriate requests for personal information that go beyond what the law requires. Those independent legal advisers will ensure that rape victims’ rights in law are respected and that the process does not feel like it is retraumatising women who are already going through so much, and who are waiting for their day in court to have justice done.

Violence against Women and Girls

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid), and for Thurrock (Jen Craft). They have all made powerful and compelling speeches. It is such a shame that certain Members from some parties simply did not bother to turn up.

I welcome the largely constructive tone from the shadow Minister, but I want to say something about the tone of the recent debate and how it has unleashed yet another tide of misinformation and lies. Overnight, Facebook groups have become a sewer of misinformation on last night’s vote. I proudly voted for the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it toughens the law to improve child protection and safeguarding. Anything else that is said about me or my colleagues is a lie.

I have made it clear to my Rochdale constituents that I am open to a new inquiry into grooming gangs, if that is what is most helpful to the victims and survivors, and, crucially, if it can be done in a way that does not conflict with live police investigations and prosecutions. We must not forget—as people are forgetting—that the Jay inquiry had victims and survivors at its very heart. They were built into its process and consulted all the way along—at the start, during and after it. Many victims and survivors have said that they want that report to be implemented in full—that is their priority. Alexis Jay’s clear demand is to get on with it. That is exactly what this Government are doing.

In Rochdale, a predominantly Pakistani-heritage grooming gang raped our local girls and tarnished our town’s good name. Andy Burnham’s independent inquiry into the council and police failures in Rochdale was published last year. Like the Jay report, the Rochdale report listened to victims and came up with recommendations. Crucially, the prosecutors and police have been able to get on and pursue further prosecutions as a result. That is what the public want. Their priority is locking up these paedophiles, and making sure that they get the strongest possible sentences and are brought to court swiftly.

Telford is another excellent example of a local inquiry that builds on the survivors’ experience and makes sure that they are involved all the way along. They know what the flaws are, what the best solutions are and how they can be embedded locally and nationally. It is clear from the Greater Manchester inquiry that the central failure was working-class girls not being believed or respected, and the police thinking that their cases would not stack up in court. That was also the problem in the abuse of boys by Cyril Smith, which I had a role in exposing as a journalist more than a decade ago. Working-class youngsters were simply not believed by the authorities, locally or nationally. It was this Prime Minister, as Director of Public Prosecutions, who brought in real change to make sure that those working-class voices could be heard in court.

The additional problem in Rochdale was delays in multi-agency working: social workers and the police not getting their act together, not getting the right specialist help and not spotting the patterns of organised abuse. We need specialists within police forces—rape specialists and child protection teams. We need to disrupt this wherever it happens and be tough on the sentencing. But what I loathe is the suggestion that this should be a political game. It sickens me that politicians can think that another party can be damaged or tarred by the idea of child abuse. I pay tribute to Theresa May for setting up the child abuse inquiry and to the former Prime Minister for setting up the grooming gangs taskforce. We should have cross-party consensus on this and maintain it at all costs.

It is sad to see that certain Reform party Members are simply not here today. A responsible politician does not ride the wave of justified anger about child abuse; they do something about it. We can have a robust debate about policy, delays, action or inaction, but to suggest that someone who disagrees is somehow complicit in or endorses child abuse is completely unacceptable. The real danger in all this is that politics will suffer and the victims will suffer.

I pay particular tribute to Sara Rowbotham, the former health worker in Rochdale who later became a Labour councillor. Her tireless work led to the exposure of the grooming gang in our town. Sara was played by Maxine Peake in the BBC drama “Three Girls”, the broadcast of which led to huge change and justice for many girls, not just across Rochdale but across the whole country. There is a remarkable effort in Rochdale—a collective movement that has long been at the forefront of protecting women and girls from domestic and sexual violence.

Our town is not just a place of resilience, but a beacon of hope, support and empowerment of the most vulnerable in our society. I pay tribute to the exceptional individuals leading this work: Khaldha Manzoor, CEO of the Rochdale Women’s Welfare Association; Kathy Thomas, CEO of Rochdale Connections Trust; and Councillors Sameena Zaheer, Janet Emsley and Amber Nisa. They have all driven this work. Finally, I must pay tribute to the youngsters. Falinge Park high school’s white ribbon ambassadors and initiatives by the Rochdale Islamic academy girls school demonstrate how education can play a pivotal role in preventing abuse and changing societal attitudes.

Rochdale stands as a testament to what can be achieved when individuals, charities, public institutions and political parties unite for a common cause. Let us honour their efforts not just with words, but with the continued support that they need to thrive.