Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will, of course, look at Harmony’s petition to see what more we can do, and look into the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I recently met a group of victims and survivors who discussed the impact that technological abuse is having on them. Let me put on record my thanks to Refuge, an incredible organisation with a dedicated tech abuse team who help victims and survivors who are in this position.

The Government know that more needs to be done. We are working directly with organisations such as Apple and Samsung on stalking technology and verification tools to ensure they cannot be used to harm victims further.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The surge in so-called nightlife videos, in which women are covertly filmed on a night out, is despicable. The videos are shared online and are accompanied by vile and misogynistic abuse, which drives engagement and generates profit for the creators. The Government have committed themselves to making misogyny an aggravated offence, but will the Minister go further and commit herself to making misogyny a hate crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Hopefully, last week the hon. Lady will have seen the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), outlining the Government’s response to tackling some of the covert filming that is causing such anxiety to women in particular, and to other vulnerable people. The material is being uploaded at speed. We know that misogynistic content online needs to be tackled, whether it is pornography or intimate image abuse, and the Government are determined to do that. We will be introducing measures in due course, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and other Members to see what else we can do to tackle the problem holistically, as a society.

Fathers and Positive Male Role Models

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers just before 4 o’clock and there are 10 people who wish to speak in the debate, if I am counting correctly. An informal speech limit of about four and a half or five minutes should allow us to get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Please do not feel rushed, because this is an important debate. I have put an informal time limit on the annunciator. If Members stick to it roughly, we should get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate, and I thank those who have given such meaningful and touching speeches.

The role of fathers and positive role models is more important than ever in our society. Our country has so many things better than it used to years ago. We have better housing, physical healthcare and quality of life than previous generations. However, it is also a country in which old certainties are being eroded. The challenges include, of course, social media and the toxic constant of online harms, and there is also the challenge to young people of finding secure, meaningful work and somewhere to live and maintaining good mental health. The way societal developments impact our children clearly demonstrates the need for positive male role models and parenting provision in Britain and around the world.

So what can we do to help make fathers more present and engaged in the lives of our children? Better paternity pay would undoubtedly feature. The report “Economic and Social Benefits of Enhanced Paternity Leave” was published this week. As we have heard, the UK’s statutory paternity leave is the worst in Europe, with two weeks’ leave paid at less than half the minimum wage. That is truly shocking. The evidence is mounting that substantial, well-paid paternity leave is the key to unlocking better outcomes in the UK. Better paternity leave reduces postpartum depression rates and the gender pay gap in the workplace, improves children’s performance at school and enhances fathers’ wellbeing.

British parents deserve to be accommodated and supported in the workplace and have the opportunity to equally share parenthood between them, leading to a more prosperous country for us all. We cannot discuss the importance of male role models and present fathers if we do not discuss the measures we can take to facilitate that. Improving paternity leave is the first step towards recognising fathers as equally important parents.

The challenge to our young people and the risk of becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—has become ever more worrying for young fathers and those they parent. Alan Milburn has recently published a report diagnosing the problem, and it makes for very concerning reading. The Centre for Social Justice reported back in April that a lack of male role models is partly responsible for teenage boys’ collapsing happiness and wellbeing. The report found that the number of male volunteers in sports and leisure clubs is falling, and that there are now 1,000 fewer youth clubs than there were 15 years ago—something I have seen in my constituency of Watford.

The report also found that, tragically, more young boys in the UK today grow up with a smartphone than with a father figure in the home. Is it any wonder that young boys are turning to alternative male role models online and falling down the toxic manosphere rabbit hole? We cannot rescue this generation from online extreme hate and declining school performance without filling the gaps that have been created in their lives. We must invest in more clubs, sports teams and youth centres so that our boys get the same socialisation and learning opportunities as previous generations. Fathers and positive role models have a vital part to play in ensuring the physical and mental health of our children and their ability to experience high-quality education and find meaningful work.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Thank you all for sticking so beautifully to the voluntary time limit. Everybody got in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Alex Brewer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent. Lord Timpson set up the Women’s Justice Board, which is considering the issues with the women’s estate. We are determined to bring down the population of women prisoners where it is safe to do so. There is a lot more work to do, but we are making progress.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T3. Hundreds of women are secretly filmed on nights out. The clips are then put online, accompanied by horrible, misogynistic comments. They are viewed millions of times, often to make a profit. What steps is the Department taking to close the current gaps in legislation and stop this vile of abuse of women on nights out?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

Non-consensual intimate images, and the kinds of images that the hon. Lady talks about, are absolutely disgusting. This Government have taken action to ensure that they will be taken down within 48 hours, as well as our banning of deepfakes. We want to ensure that women are safe—whether in their homes, on their streets or online—and there is still more action to take.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Ensuring that witnesses and victims can give their best evidence in court is vital if we are to achieve prosecution of these awful crimes. We are introducing legislation to improve access to special measures for witnesses and victims, including permitting victims to be accompanied while giving evidence, separate entrances and exits, and the provision of pre-recorded cross-examination. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend with more information as the legislation progresses.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I recently brought together domestic abuse charities in Bath, such as Developing Health and Independence, Voices, and the Nelson Trust, which provide services including how to navigate the complicated justice system. They all agree it is critical that they all work together and that there are joined-up local services, but what can be done nationally to bring organisations and charities together, rather than pitting them against each other in an environment of often limited resources?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Lady is totally right to raise that point. We talk a lot about multi-agency working, but it is difficult to put into practice. As she will be aware, just before Christmas we published the “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy on how we can tackle violence against women and girls, with multi-agency working on a national level and practices and applications at the heart of that strategy. I will meet our victims’ sector advisory board later this afternoon, and I will make sure to raise this point with them as well, so that we bring them in. They are the people on the ground delivering this work, so we should learn from them directly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. That sounds like a really important initiative. A big swathe of this Government’s agenda is trying to tackle reoffending, which means improving rehabilitative services within our prisons. I look forward to meeting this service with my hon. Friend in the new year.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

One in three rape trials end up being postponed, in some cases more than six times, and 73% of rape survivors say that police treatment worsened their mental health during the process. What improvements will be made in how the police treat rape survivors?

[Mr Lammy]

The Criminal Justice Board, which brings all the justice partners together, met recently, and of course the police are represented on that board. However, I urge the hon. Lady to look closely at the Victims and Courts Bill, which provides for the reform that we need to reduce the backlog.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

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

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

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

Work of the County Court: Government Response

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Thank you. That ends the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

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

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

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

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

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

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

[Ian Byrne]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

[Josh Babarinde]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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