Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

As I said, we will respond in due course. In the meantime, voluntary reporting by employers exists and we have seen it increase over the past three years. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck, and that is what we are working through with consultation across the board.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on gaps in existing legislation on public sexual harassment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

Public sexual harassment is appalling, and we are committed to tackling it. As set out in the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, we are looking carefully at where there may be gaps in existing laws and how a specific offence could address those, while also engaging closely with campaigners.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Some 66% of young women and girls experience public sexual harassment, which has a huge impact on their confidence, their self-esteem and their mental health. It makes them feel unsafe and uncomfortable wearing, doing or saying things in public spaces. Therefore, we should make public sexual harassment a specific criminal offence. Will the Minister meet me and campaigners who want to see that happen, and look at a way forward on this serious issue?

[Rachel Maclean]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are taking the views of campaigners on board, and I and other Ministers meet with them regularly. As I have said, we are looking at whether there may be some specific legislative gaps, but it will always be a pleasure for me to meet her.

COP26

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank Bristol for what it is doing. We are committed to regional plans for net zero. It should be possible within the funding envelope that Bristol has, but we will certainly look at it.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Department of Energy and Climate Change, which was under Lib Dem leadership until 2015, was a huge driver towards decarbonisation across the board. There are now renewed calls to bring back such a Department, but there seem to be sources in the Treasury who are against such a move, saying that it would become

“the biggest begging bowl in Whitehall outside the NHS”.

Does the Prime Minister agree that we should bring back the Department of Energy and Climate Change, or does he agree with the Treasury?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is totally wrong, because we need to integrate business into the fight against climate change. That is the way to do it, as we have done with wind power, and we also need nuclear power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady knows that that is a wholly erroneous interpretation of the presumption clause, which is there simply to ensure that we expedite the accumulation of jurisprudence.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

9. What steps he is taking to support prosecutions for violence against women and girls.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve the prosecution and conviction rates of those charged with rape.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)]

The Government are providing £150 million this year for victims and witnesses and the support services relating to all types of crime. Of that, more than £50 million has been ringfenced specifically for rape and domestic abuse victims.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In Bath we are fortunate to have the charity Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support, which empowers survivors to tell their stories. With just 2.4% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction, too many women do not come forward for fear that they will have to relive their trauma, and they do not get justice. Will the Secretary of State commit to mandatory training in the Crown Prosecution Service on understanding the impact of trauma and supporting victims, so that all victims of rape come forward in the knowledge that justice is being served?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this very important issue in the forensic way that she does. The funding that I referred to includes funding for 700 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, precisely to give victims the support, advice and confidence to see their cases through. We have to bear down on the attrition rate—as it is called in the criminal justice system—of victims falling out of the system because of lack of confidence.

To respond directly to the hon. Lady’s point, before Christmas we will publish criminal justice scorecards not only for general crime but specifically for rape, so we will be able to see the performance at every step in the system. That will help to spur an increase in performance, which will give victims the confidence to come forward and get prosecutions to court.

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I will go on to detail some of the things the hon. Lady is referring to. Back in May 2020, it was Dominic Cummings’s trip to Barnard Castle, in flagrant breach of covid regulations; then it was the Home Secretary, found to have breached the ministerial code, but let off; and then it was the then Health Secretary breaching covid guidance he had been instructing others to follow. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It has been said in the media that some MPs are now walking through the corridors of Westminster feeling invincible. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are accountable to our constituents and that they are our boss?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I agree, and that is one of the challenges. This is not an ordinary job. We are not in a line management structure; we are accountable only to our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

That was a long intervention but a necessary one. The right hon. Lady is spot on. The way that donations have been going into the Tory party needs to be properly investigated, and I am going to suggest a way that that should be done.

We are on day six of this. For six days, it has dominated political discourse in our media, in the public and in our communities and our constituencies. Nobody—no Minister who has presided over something that goes on day after day—usually survives that. It shows no sign of abating or going away.

I do not know whether the public will accept the apology made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; I suspect not. I do not think that was what the public wanted to hear. I do not think they were saying, “Yes, we want to hear this Government standing there saying, ‘Sorry, we’ve got this totally wrong.’” I think the public want to hear this Government being just that little bit more contrite and just that little bit more accommodating with the feeling and the sentiment out there in our constituencies. Our constituents are angry. Our constituents are fed up. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to do a little bit better than that.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We have established that the corrupt and bad behaviour of some MPs damages all of us, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed now is the commitment of every single Member to strengthen, rather than weaken, the standards process and the rules around it?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and spot on. That is exactly what is required. When I hear Conservative Members talking about reforming some of the rules and regulations to replace what we have in place, I am not hearing an attempt to strengthen them to make them better and more accountable. What I am hearing from them is, “Let’s weaken them. Let’s make sure that people can get off and get away with things. If we don’t like them, let’s rewrite them and do them all again.” That is what we are hearing from them.

I feel sorry for Conservative Back Benchers. The way they have been treated by the Government Front Bench almost approaches cruelty. They have been marched all the way to the top of the hill by the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset—the grand old Duke of York—and marched all the way down again. They have not just been marched all the way down, however. They have been met with a barrage, a volley of bad constituents’ emails and the consternation of the people they represent. I feel sorry for the Conservative hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen here today for having to take that. I hope they know who is to blame for what they have to endure.

G20 and COP26 World Leaders Summit

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Ysgol Dinas Brân, which I know from my own abortive attempt to win the seat that my hon. Friend now represents so well. I thank those at the school for what they are doing, and I think they are quite right to set the example they are setting. All new schools in our country are carbon-neutral.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his updates on the G20 summit and COP26, and also for listening so carefully to the suggestions from these Benches. I am sure that he, too, is disappointed that the G20 could not agree on an end date for domestic fossil fuel use. Will he be brave, show leadership, and set an end date for the extraction and domestic use of all fossil fuels in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

We will have no fossil fuels at all in our power generation system from 2035 onwards.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I have not reflected on that statement very much.

I was reminded recently of the importance of judicial review by the infamous “Judge over your shoulder” leaflet, which has been published since 1987 to remind civil servants of the importance of sound decision making. The leaflet advises civil servants of the importance of good governance and of making decisions effectively and fairly to avoid those decisions being found unlawful. It recognises that administrative law and, in this case, judicial review played an important part in securing good administration by providing a powerful method of ensuring that the improper exercise of power can be checked.

Frankly, that is why having effective judicial remedies is so important to maintain good governance. The threat of judicial review is a powerful tool to encourage decision makers to make decisions well and fairly. If the power of quashing orders were to be neutered in the way clause 1 seeks, not only would that leave victims of unlawful decisions without the remedy they deserve, but it would reduce the motivation for public bodies to take care when making decisions. I agree with the Law Society of England and Wales when it says that that would have a truly chilling effect on justice in this country and we must question why the Government are even considering the changes in clause 1. Those changes go far beyond what was recommended by the Government’s own independent review of administrative law. The review made no recommendation that quashing orders should be prospective only. It specifically recommended against that type of presumption.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sign of a mature democracy is that it protects the marginalised and vulnerable? Government Members completely misunderstand that point.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That ought to be a principle across the House, not a party political issue.

To return to the review of administrative law that the Government set up, in their consultation response, the Government acknowledge that presumptions were not recommended by the review panel, and they were generally met with scepticism from respondents to the consultation. Indeed, it is not even certain whether prospective-only remedies would withstand a challenge before the European Court of Human Rights for failure to provide an effective remedy. Given the Government’s own panel of experts, and the sector, are opposed to that change, and given the harmful effect that it would have on victims of unlawful decisions, as well as on governmental decision making, we must ask why the Government are keen to make this change. Is it really, as they suggest, to provide courts with greater flexibility, or is it simply to insulate the Government from being held to account, and to weaken the power of claimants to seek compensation?

Clause 2 seeks to abolish Cart-type judicial reviews. For Members who may not be familiar with what those are, Cart judicial reviews allow individuals to ask the High Court to review decisions made by the upper tribunal to refuse a right of appeal. The vast majority of Cart reviews are sought by those who find themselves in horrendously desperate situations and they invoke some of our most fundamental human rights, including in some cases the difference between life and death. During the review of administrative law that the Government set up and the consultation stage, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association provided the panel with 57 case studies of when Cart judicial review has been used to put right an incorrect decision made by the upper tribunal. Those case studies included parents’ applications to be reunited with their children, a child’s application to remain in the UK to receive lifesaving treatment, the asylum claim of a victim of human trafficking and female genital mutilation, and many other deportation and asylum decisions where, if deported, individuals faced persecution or their lives would be at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). As someone with no legal training, I always enjoy listening to people with legal training who make clear what the issues are. I hope the Government listen carefully to the concerns that he has raised about part 1 of the Bill. As always, the Government are putting forward perfectly reasonable proposals and mixing them up with something that is very controversial. On the Opposition side of the House, we are not at all convinced that this Bill is anything other than an attack on the most vulnerable and most marginalised in our society, and we want to protect them.

The Government claim that this Bill will hand additional tools to judges. What the Bill actually does is restrict judicial review. Judicial review is working well in this country. Although these proposals might not go as far as many feared, I remind colleagues of Lord Neuberger’s words that judicial review

“is what ensures that the executive arm of government keeps to the law and that individual rights are protected”.

Government accountability is fundamental to our democratic society. That is the principle on which Liberal Democrats oppose this Bill.

Taken against the Government’s broader programme of constitutional reform, it is difficult to see this Bill as anything other than part of a concerted effort to take power away from individuals and to stop them holding Governments to account. In the past year, we have seen: the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which restricts people’s rights to peaceful assembly and protest; voter ID proposals under the Elections Bill that stop people from vulnerable and marginalised backgrounds from exercising their democratic right to vote; and attempts to weaken the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UK’s commitment to the European convention on human rights. Now we have a Bill that limits people’s ability to hold Governments to account through the courts.

Key elements within the Bill are particularly concerning. Clause 2 permits the courts to abolish Cart judicial reviews and imposes de facto ouster clauses. That removes a vital safeguard in situations where tribunals make mistakes. We have heard about that several times already this afternoon. The vast majority—92%—of Cart judicial reviews are immigration and asylum cases. Many of the remaining cases concern access to benefits for disabled people and other people facing destitution. Those are all situations where the stakes are incredibly high for the people involved.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a fascinating speech and some very strong points. Does she agree that there is now an established body of judicial review going back a number of years that seems to demonstrate that this particular area of law has allowed the Executive to be held to account by the most vulnerable and weakest in our society? Does she also agree that an additional benefit, as mentioned by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), is that it focuses the minds of those working in Government—in particular those in the civil service and Ministers—to provide better quality decision making in the first place?

[Wera Hobhouse]

This issue absolutely is about that particular section of society who seem to be under attack in this case. Decisions have been made where those people should have been supported in the first place, and then they do not even have a comeback under the law, and that is just wrong.

What is more, the low success rate, which the Government are using to defend their plans, massively understates the number of Cart judicial reviews that secure a positive outcome for the claimant. Scrapping Cart judicial reviews goes against everything that a fair-minded liberal democracy stands for. We Liberal Democrats will never cease to stand up for such rights.

The Government state in their press release that

“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”

In other words, they are admitting that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge and that it could open the door to more ouster clauses in the future, which would create whole areas of Government action that could not be judicially reviewed, making them immune from accountability through the courts.

Liberty has described the Bill as

“part of this Government’s bid to make itself…untouchable.”

The Law Society warns that the Bill

“should ring alarm bells for people who come up against the might of the state.”

There can be no justification for such a Bill in a democratic society. I urge colleagues across the House to vote against it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Lady will know, I have written to local Members of Parliament to tell them that businesses within the secure perimeter will be compensated for any loss of revenues. Of course, the number of people coming means that this is also going to be an opportunity for businesses across Glasgow to benefit, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the matter.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of proposals to put four new oil wells in Surrey on the UK’s (a) credibility and (b) negotiating position as President of COP26.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

The 2019 decision of Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for four new bore holes is currently subject to a legal challenge, which will be heard by the Court of Appeal in November. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics, due to the ongoing litigation.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The International Energy Agency has warned that if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, the exploitation and development of new oil and gas fields must stop this year, yet there are currently proposals for multiple new exploratory oil developments across the UK. With just 11 days to go until world leaders gather in Glasgow, how can the COP26 President justify these developments against the Government’s stated aim of keeping global warming to 1.5 °C?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As I announced earlier this year in my former role, the Government will be introducing a climate compatibility checkpoint for any new licences issued, in order to assess whether any future licensing rounds remain in keeping with our climate goals. The checkpoint, which we have committed to launch by the end of this year, will be used to assess the climate compatibility of any future licensing rounds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says about the importance of buying British and eating British. Our food is the best in the world. He is also right to address the problems that we are currently seeing in the supply chain, but we are taking steps. Of course, it has been a problem for a long time, but we will use the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to ensure that British farms get the labour that they need.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Q11. I express my condolences to the Prime Minister and his family.Does the Prime Minister believe that the burning of fossil fuels will not be a source of energy in the UK in future?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Since just 2012, when I think I was Mayor of London—I was—we have cut CO₂ massively and we have cut our dependence on coal from 40% to less than 1%. How about that, Mr Speaker?

Elections Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

I reassure the hon. Member that I have been a member of the Labour party since 2004—a relatively active member—and I have never been asked to show ID at any meetings. Even if I was asked, I would say that political parties are membership organisations—we know that members are often expelled from political parties, as it often hits the headlines—but the right to vote in elections in a democracy is a fundamental human right. That is slightly different from being a member of a political party.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is the hon. Member as concerned as I am that comparisons from other countries show that voter ID requirements disproportionately affect voters from ethnic minority backgrounds?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Lady makes a good point and is absolutely right. Studies from the United States show that voters from black and Hispanic backgrounds are disproportionally affected by requirements to show ID. Indeed, there are many similarities between the repressive voter suppression laws in some US states and this legislation. I believe that in Texas a voter can show their gun licence to vote but they cannot show a student ID, and in the Bill student ID is not a valid piece of identification but a bus pass is valid. It seems that one type of ID is more valuable than another, and it seems that the type of person likely to hold that ID is very much considered when drawing up the acceptable list.

I turn to changes to the regulation of the Electoral Commission, which seem to be political interference in the regulation of our elections. There is no doubt that the Government’s setting the strategy and policy document for the Electoral Commission is a dangerous precedent. When we look to similar democracies such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, we see a complete separation between Government and their electoral commissions. Indeed, at this morning’s meeting of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Helen Mountfield, QC, a barrister at Matrix chambers, said that the Bill arguably breaches international law and that the removal of the Electoral Commission’s independence is “legally problematic” and breaches the UK’s constitutional standards. To be blunt, we would not allow, say, an arsonist to decide the fire brigade’s strategy and policy direction, and we certainly would not let shoplifters decide the police’s strategy and policy direction. It therefore seems a little bit odd that when it comes to regulating political parties, some parties—those in government—seem to have an awful lot of power to decide the strategy and policy direction of that.

On the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, this is a Committee that already has an in-built Government majority, and the legislation seeks to strengthen and increase that majority. If we saw this happening in any other democracy around the world, I do not think we would sit back and say that that looked okay. It does not look okay—it does not pass the sniff test—and that bit needs to be changed.

The Bill is riddled with cheap attempts to dodge scrutiny. That seems to be the theme that runs throughout this legislation. In a free and open democracy, democratically elected Governments are scrutinised by opposition parties and civil society. That is part of what makes democracy healthy, and the freedom for civil society to do this and to hold those in power to account is the sign of a strong democracy. This Bill is an attack on some parties more than others, and I would say that the attack on the trade unions—the 6 million people who are members of trade unions—is an attack on all working people’s rights to campaign for fair pay at work and health and safety in the workplace, and it is actually an attack on the people who have got our country through the pandemic.

Afghanistan

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As has been said, there are many groups in Afghanistan who have put their lives on the line to support the Afghan Government, democracy and justice in Afghanistan, and it is right that we should do everything we can to support them in their time of need. However, as we know, under the Taliban regime the life of women and girls will sadly not be the same; they will not have the rights we believe they should have or the freedoms they should have.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

There are already reports from sources in Kabul that the Taliban is executing collaborators and homosexuals. Does the right hon. Lady agree that complacency is absolutely misplaced, and what does she suggest we do to protect those people who need to get out?

[Mrs May]

The Government are doing much to protect people in trying to ensure that people can access ways of leaving Afghanistan. A point was made earlier about not just expecting people to get to Kabul, and I hope that is something the Government will be able to look into and take up.

Apart from the impact on the lives of women and girls, we see a potential humanitarian crisis, at least in some parts of Afghanistan. We have cut our international aid budget, but I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has told me that more funding will be made available to deal with this crisis.

It is not just the impact on the people of Afghanistan that must concern us, however; we must be deeply concerned about the possible impact here in the UK. The aim of our involvement in Afghanistan was to ensure that it could not be used as a haven for terrorists who could train, plot, and encourage attacks in the UK. Al-Qaeda has not gone away. Daesh may have lost ground in Syria, but those terrorist groups remain and have spawned others. We will not defeat them until we have defeated the ideology that feeds their extremism.