Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  The Lord Chancellor mentioned working with experts in his previous answer. Amnesty International has recently questioned the Government’s human rights assessment of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, describing the proposals as a “dilution of the quality of justice”, particularly in relation to “efforts to combat racial discrimination”. These issues were raised at earlier stages of the Bill, but the Government batted away our concerns. The time is right to change course, prior to the return of the Bill in October. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those concerns are being heard by the Prime Minister while he considers the future of the Bill, and can he guarantee that hon. Members from across the House and experts in the sector will have adequate time to scrutinise the Government’s amendments before we are asked to debate it on the second day back after recess?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats in the other place have secured an amendment to address the injustice of locked child trust funds for disabled children. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has experience of this issue with his own disabled son, and he has been a passionate campaigner for a change in the law for many years, working with other campaigners such as Andrew Turner. When the amendment comes back to this House, will the Labour Government support it?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Students on the Manhood peninsula in my constituency have no access to post-16 education unless they travel into the city to go to the brilliant Chichester college, and those parents who are paying for a student’s bus fare are struggling to find, on average, £1,200 a year to get them there. Given that it is estimated that one in five students is not in regular education even though they are signed up for college, what steps can the Secretary of State take to make sure that all those living in coastal areas can access post-16 education, and that parents can afford to get them there?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I was shocked and appalled at the vitriol and hate shown towards volunteers for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution across the entire south coast, including at RNLI Selsey in my constituency. They go out day in, day out and show us what actual patriots look like when they are saving lives at sea. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to our brave RNLI volunteers and make time to debate how we can better support them?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I want to impress upon the Secretary of State the anger that my local councillors, across all parties, are feeling at yet another pause, because pauses create more uncertainty for local authorities, when they should be planning for the future so that our residents get better services in the long term. Does the Secretary of State believe that a single resident in West Sussex is better off because of the reforms that were announced two years ago?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member says “many” go on to deeply regret the decision to be a surrogate. What does the data show? How many end up regretting their decision, in terms of a percentage of the surrogates in the UK?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate and for so thoughtfully laying out both sides, which have been well exercised today. Being able to start a family is one of life’s greatest privileges. However, for those in many families, whether they are struggling with infertility, are in same-sex relationships or have health issues that would prevent them from having a safe pregnancy, surrogacy has become an option that would allow them to start a family. The landscape of surrogacy has changed in the years since the first known surrogate baby was born in 1984. Surrogacy is now being widely recognised as a pathway to parenthood, with 67 parental order applications received by the family courts in 2008, rising to 514 in 2025, although I recognise that many different numbers have been suggested today.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think any woman enters into any pregnancy lightly, whether it is their own pregnancy or a surrogate pregnancy. I would assume that any surrogate mother is well informed of the risks they are taking in growing a life over nine months, which is no mean feat. Since 2018, there have been 350 parental order applications from couples in a same-sex relationship, according to Brilliant Beginnings. Adam and Jamie, who brought this petition to the House today, chose to go abroad to the US because they would be recognised as Leven’s parents from day one. I am sure it would have come as a shock to them to discover, before Leven was born, that their home—the UK—does not recognise them as Leven’s legal parents under UK law until the parental order is completed, which can take anywhere between six and 12 months.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend pre-empts what I will go on to say, but he also makes an important point. If I chose to be a surrogate for a friend or a family member, I think my husband would be pretty shocked at being named as the father on a birth certificate, when it was my decision to be a surrogate. Regardless of where we sit in this argument, I think we can all agree that that does not make any sense. I commend Adam and Jamie for their bravery in sharing their journey to parenthood and the additional challenges that they have faced in securing their rights, which they are already recognised as having in the US, as their daughter’s parents. The journey they took is more common today. Around 500 babies are born through surrogacy to UK parents every year, and nearly three quarters are now born through international surrogacy. The most popular destination is the USA, with the other quarter spread over countries including Canada, Colombia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria and Ukraine. It is legitimate to raise concerns about surrogacy practices in other countries, especially ones where it is not regulated and there is a risk of trafficking and exploitation. That is why the subject needs to be handled with such sensitivity. We must ensure that the rights of the surrogate, the baby and the intended parents are at the heart of everything we do, and that legislation reflects that. The recommendations of the Law Commission’s report into surrogacy law, published in 2023, attempted to address many of those issues. The report, requested by the UK Government of the day, sought to create a new pathway to parenthood for UK surrogacy, with intended parents recorded on their child’s birth certificate provided the surrogate does not change her mind. It also called for regulation of non-profit UK surrogacy organisations to oversee the new pathway, including requirements for a written surrogacy agreement, screening, legal advice and counselling, as well as tighter categorisation of permitted payments to UK surrogates. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted that there should be no doubt between payments and legitimate expenses, and I agree with him. The Law Commission’s report found a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We need a law that can be clearly and fairly applied, to ensure that families and surrogates alike understand their rights and responsibilities. However, the report has not had a formal response from Government, even though it was published three years ago, nor has any time been given for the House to debate the wider conversation around surrogacy so that we can reflect the changing environment—a call made by hon. Members from across the House. That is why this needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency. I ask the Minister today to explain what work is being done to improve clarity on the issue and whether we can expect legislation to address it. As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) said, there is a Bill ready to go. The Liberal Democrats recognise that the current system can create long delays as intended parents apply for a parental order after birth, and we recognise the distress that delays can cause to those involved. It is clear that delays can also cause practical issues for parents who have caring responsibilities but lack legal security, which creates problems around registering.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is worth putting on record that the Law Commission report in 2023 suggested that, if everything was decided before the birth, the legal parents could have the rights from day one, but the biological, or surrogate, mother would have a chance to go against that in the first six weeks of the baby’s life. Does the hon. Member agree with the Law Commission report, which still has that fundamental safeguard, but which also recognises that the intended parents are the parents from day one?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  I am in no way suggesting that we create a two-tier system. Talking about how long the adoption process can take, especially for those who have had fostering responsibilities and are transitioning into adopting those children, and talking about how arduous that process can be, including when making sure that children have up-to-date health records and so on, would be a separate debate. We are clearly talking about health services as well. If a child is born with a health concern, the intended parents who are providing their day-to-day care should have the facility to act on behalf of that child to make sure they are well looked after. It is also worth pointing out at this stage that, if a heterosexual couple presented in a hospital with a child who is poorly, it is very unlikely that a health professional would ask, “Can you please prove that you are the legal parents?”, but for same-sex couples it is more likely that someone would ask that question. We are creating a two-tier system between heterosexual couples who choose surrogacy and homosexual or same-sex couples who choose surrogacy, and I am not in favour of a two-tier system at all. The Liberal Democrats also believe that, as with all the issues raised in this debate, any decisions regarding the legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the rights and wellbeing of all those involved are balanced and respected. I ask the Minister when the Government intend to respond to the report in full and whether they intend to bring forward any legislation on this issue for Parliament to consider—because, although this is Adam and Jamie’s debate, they represent a much wider group of people. I will finish by saying that so few people have touchpoints with our Parliament and our political system, and passing the threshold to have an issue debated in Parliament is no mean feat; but it should not be the end of the story. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what the next steps are, to ensure that the conversation about this issue continues.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for supporting that Adjournment debate. Every community should have a Jodie; mine was a Julie, and she was constantly chasing funding to keep Milk alive. When my daughter was born, five years after my son, that Milk group, which I had relied on so heavily, was now being run out of a broom cupboard. It was by appointment only, and parents could not take their older children along. The whole thing had just crumbled, so I feared for those coming after me who would not be able to find their village. Six months after my daughter was born, the pandemic hit. Her 12-month health visitor review was done on Zoom, and my daughter was not even in the room with me. The baby movers classes that I had loved so much with my son ceased to exist, so I ended up running them on Facebook Live—I would message everybody at 10 o’clock and say, “I’m going to go live in half an hour, and we’re all going to shake our beanbag together in our own lounges.” The local children and family centre in Chichester never reopened in the same way after the pandemic, and the children and family centre in Selsey—a coastal community in my constituency—is now permanently closed. The clearest example of the effectiveness of early support and intervention, as cited by many hon. Members across the House today, was Sure Start. Last May, that service was described in a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies as having had an “overwhelmingly positive” effect, with the benefit estimated to be over £2 in societal value for every £1 spent. However, when budgets were tightened during austerity, it was services such as Sure Start that were cut to the bone. The provisions in this Bill are so important because they add statutory foundations, assessments and accountability to protect infant support services for the future. This Bill should allow Parliament to recognise the importance of services such as feeding support, to ensure that provision is maintained and services are improved. The impact is stark, especially when it comes to infant feeding. Through the work of the APPG for infant feeding and inequalities, I had the privilege of hosting the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative in Parliament last year for the launch of its 2024 report, which was looking at breastfeeding in the UK against metrics measuring other countries. The key takeaway from that report is that the UK has some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. Importantly, however, the data also shows that the majority of mothers do set out to breastfeed; despite this, by six to eight weeks, around 70% of babies in the UK receive some formula, and by six months, only 1% of babies are exclusively breastfed. The majority of mothers who stopped breastfeeding early wanted to breastfeed for longer, but did not receive the help they needed to resolve the problems they were facing. In my constituency of Chichester, most of the support—as cited by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed)—is run on a voluntary basis. There is now a brilliant support group that runs out of the Graylingwell chapel, and it is run by retired midwives who give up their time and run the group for free. I know what a lifeline that has been for so many mothers, but at the point when those midwives choose not to do that any more, the service will disappear, because it is not on a statutory footing. Many of the midwives in my local maternity unit at St Richard’s run support groups in their spare time on their days off.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She raises an important point, namely that infant feeding is not taught generically across medical professions. For example, a lot of mothers may present at their GP surgery if they are having challenges, but their GP is probably not the best placed person to inform them on how they can best be supported on their infant feeding journey, whatever that looks like. Advice from specialists, such as midwives and most health visitors, means that people are being supported, asking the right questions and getting the right answers. Breastfeeding strengthens babies’ immune systems and significantly reduces the risk of infections, obesity, asthma and long-term conditions such as type-2 diabetes. I pay tribute to Her Grace the Duchess of Richmond for convening a Goodwood health summit to specifically look at the infant gut microbiome, and at how important it is in those formative days of pregnancy and the first few critical weeks of life, and for her continued advocacy in that space. For mothers, breastfeeding lowers the risk of breast and ovarian cancers, cardiovascular disease, and supports post-natal mental health. Providing support for breastfeeding mothers can pay for itself further down the line by improving the health of babies and mothers. Currently the UK has no national infant feeding strategy, timebound action plan, multisectoral infant feeding committee, or overall national co-ordinator. There is little-to-no mention of infant feeding in health professional training, and no co-ordinated strategy for infant feeding in emergency situations. I hope that the Bill will provide the foundation for such support to return to levels that we have seen in the past, and address gaps that have always existed. Babies and their parents deserve better, and I look forward to supporting the Bill through its passage through the House, including in Committee.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is very much my opinion that mothers should all have the right to choose how we want to feed our babies, and that choice should be based on information. If parents are not given the information they need before making those choices, they do not have a choice—it has been taken away from them.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right. Just as every pregnancy is different, every breastfeeding journey is also different. We do not want to put mothers in a position where all they have is Google at their fingertips at 2 o’clock in the morning, when the baby is devastated and will not feed, and they are worried that they are dehydrated. The National Breastfeeding Helpline, a 24/7 service funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, is an important resource and a lifeline for so many mothers—33,000 mothers call every month. It is also helpful to have peer support. If someone is in a room with other mothers who are saying, “I experience mastitis,” or “I experience thrush, and this is what I did to get past it. Keep going and come back next week and see if things are better,” that support can mean so much to a mother who feels like they are on their own in that journey.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point: the formula industry is a commercial industry. Breast milk, by its very nature, is free and therefore does not have the backing of large-scale corporations that advertise it widely. Does he agree, then, that the Government should heed the Competition and Markets Authority’s report into the formula milk industry and take on its recommendations, including price controls for formula milk?

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, and I also sit on the advisory board for the 1001 Critical Days Foundation. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing the Bill to the House and giving us all an opportunity to wax lyrical about babies. We get fewer emails from babies than other constituents we represent, which is why it is so important that the Members who have chosen to be here are taking the opportunity to speak up for the voiceless. Let me take this opportunity to welcome a new baby into my family. I have a new nephew—my first nephew. His name is Raven and he was born eight days ago; he was born with a thick shock of jet black hair, so he clearly knew what his name was going to be. He is wonderful and we all love him dearly already, including my two children, who are delighted to have a cousin to steer down the wrong path. As the 1001 Critical Days Foundation has made clear through its campaigning and work on the Bill, a baby’s development until the age of two is vital. Failing to provide adequate support for parents and babies at this time can leave individuals and families chasing their tails in the future, trying to make up for issues that occurred during this crucial period. Investment in infants’ health and care pays dividends for society, improving health and educational outcomes, and reducing inequality. It is for that reason that I absolutely support what the Bill is trying to achieve: putting support in the early years on a statutory footing and ensuring a health check of early years support by the Secretary of State at regular intervals. As the Chair of the Education Committee said, there is an old adage: “It takes a village.” But if a new parent cannot access services in their local area, how are they meant to find their village? I was lucky when I had my children—the first one nearly 12 years ago—to find my village. I attended a weekly breastfeeding support group called Milk, where we could talk freely and openly about the challenges, understand why our babies’ poo was a funny colour, and get advice about combination feeding, introducing solids or returning to work. At that group, we also learnt about developmental leaps, which I do not remember a midwife or a health visitor ever telling me about when my child was born. I could not understand why I put to bed a lovely calm child, and then a demon woke up and was so hard to soothe for three or four days. When I went to that group, the parents who were a month or two ahead of me said, “Are you sure they are not having a developmental leap? It could be that they are learning new things, and that is why they are struggling to sleep, or they are unregulated, or their pattern has moved around.” It was so helpful. There was an area for the older children to play. We all enjoyed a cup of tea, something that was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). We weighed our babies, and we talked about the various methods we all adopted to remember what side we last fed our baby on. The women I met at that group are still my friends today, and they have made my life as a mother better, more supported and brighter. We also went to a baby movers group every Friday morning, where we shook our beanbags, threw scarves over our children and sang songs that still randomly appear in my head when I cannot sleep at 11 o’clock at night.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  On the subject of wildfires, the Prime Minister has said that he does not believe our fire service have the right equipment, and I could not agree with him more. West Sussex fire and rescue service currently does not have access to wildfire personal protective equipment, and its newest off-road vehicle is 26 years old. Will the First Secretary of State or the relevant Minister please meet me and the chief fire officer of West Sussex fire and rescue to talk about how we can ensure that we keep the services on a sustainable financial footing so that they can keep us safe and we can also keep them safe?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Justice Secretary knows that the chaos and uncertainty for victims and their loved ones over the summer months from the handling of this scheme have been unforgivable. The Government have changed course countless times, leaving PC Andrew Harper’s family and countless others without the certainty that they deserve. The reality, as we all agree, is that in a properly functioning justice system, no victim or loved one should ever be told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than they were told when that sentence was handed down. However, if tough decisions have to be made, they have to be made carefully, sensitively and preparedly, with the safety of victims, loved ones and the public front of mind. How, therefore, will the Justice Secretary be communicating these—I hope—final changes to those who received the generic letters, including victims of grooming gangs and sexual abuse, earlier this year, and will those letters be tailored to each victim? He mentioned in his statement those who are not in the victim contact scheme and an effort by the MOJ to contact them. Can he please provide an assessment of how many victims he thinks that is, and how much resource he will be given to try to track them down? The reality for the new Justice Secretary is that his inheritance is now a public safety crisis. If probation staff go ahead with strike action, as threatened last month, is he confident that the system can safely manage the risks of releasing thousands of extra offenders? This has all the hallmarks of a national emergency waiting to happen, yet where is the emergency response? Can he explain why the national Criminal Justice Board has not met all year, despite these changes being discussed last year as part of the Sentencing Act, and will he now convene Cobra to give the situation the gravitas it deserves? The prison capacity crisis is one that this Government inherited two years ago, but they now own the response. As highlighted by the chief executive of the Howard League, we are “one major incident away from a disaster.” Prisons such as Wandsworth have been operating at 62% above their intended built capacity as the new normal, creating dangerous conditions that undermine any effort to rehabilitate offenders. What confidence can the Justice Secretary provide that he can deliver this increase in capacity on time, given past failings to do so, and that he can adequately staff it?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on leading today’s important debate and for setting out comprehensively, but also succinctly—I am very grateful for that—why we are here debating SLAPPs. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on originally securing today’s debate. Our justice system was built on the principle of fair and equal treatment for all who go through it. It should not be a tool for the rich and powerful to systematically silence accusers and avoid accountability, but the growing use of SLAPPs makes it abundantly clear that the system is in fact tilted towards those who harness power or wealth. Victims, journalists, academics, whistleblowers and many more, all attempting to speak truth to power, are being silenced by mechanisms within the justice system that are being weaponised and abused. Those mechanisms are not intended to protect these rich and powerful individuals but are doing just that and preventing access to justice. Lawsuits and threats with immense financial implications and additional time constraints are being used to intimidate and coerce individuals into stepping out of the legal system and stopping their actions. They are keeping cases of immense importance and significance to the public out of the courts, undermining the fair and equitable justice system that we should all strive to achieve. I know many today have been supported by the work of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which has done so much to expose these cases and push for the legislative changes that are necessary. The coalition has reported spikes in the number of cases sent to it in recent years, blaming an environment in the UK that is claimant friendly and in favour of those suing. That is not something that we should be proud of. Of course, there have been high-profile cases that have come to light, and some have been alluded to today. Mohamed al-Fayed, the Horizon scandal and Grenfell all provide serious regrets, and attempts to bring those scandals to light were continually blocked from the courts, elongating the pain of their victims and meaning that many never saw justice served at all. One case provided by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition illustrates many of these issues. It is the case of Heidi who, having contracted a building firm to carry out an extension of her home, became concerned about the quality of the work carried out. She terminated the work, but having taken a six-figure loss, made a complaint to the trading standards authority. She was informed that she would need other cases to take the case forward, which she then requested on social media. Having done that, Heidi was challenged by the building company’s lawyers with a letter stating that her actions amounted to harassment, defamation and malicious falsehood and falsely questioning her legal qualifications. It is very similar to a case brought to me by a gentleman connected to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, who spoke to me about the intense level of legal correspondence he received from an estate management company that he had accused of poor service and mismanagement. He had created a Facebook group not just for that estate management company but to find other cases of estate management companies that had been failing their residents. He was relentlessly pursued by the estate management company’s legal team, with letters insisting that he remove the group or he would face legal action. There is also the harrowing case study that was covered by the BBC’s “Woman’s Hour” of a clinic that performed plastic surgery. Having encouraged customers to leave reviews on its website and on Trustpilot, the clinic had its lawyers pursue legal action against at least five individuals who dared to write negative reviews of its service. Those reviews related to legitimate concerns about the quality of treatment provided by the clinic, yet the customers were pursued with vigour—threatening legal action of taking individuals to court and defamation claims of thousands of pounds. One woman said that she hid the whole case from her husband for fear of losing their family home. She felt totally silenced by this plastic surgery company that was threatening to take away her home. It resulted in a number of the individuals removing their completely legitimate concerns about their treatment from the online forums. All of these cases highlight situations arising up and down the country in which the legal system is being used to intimidate and to scare individuals into not speaking out—and those are the ones we know about. As many Members have said today, this is just the tip of the iceberg, because a number of people will have folded under the immense pressure and immense amount of money being thrown at them. We do not know how many cases we do not know about. What we need to combat such practices are universal statutory protections to counter SLAPPs in UK law—something eminently achievable, as has been shown in the US and Europe. Currently, well-meaning journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and victims speaking out on matters of public interest unrelated to economic crime have no legal recourse, and these gaps must be addressed. New legislation should be introduced that ensures equal access to the justice system and does not allow those with vast amounts of money the opportunity to silence victims or those undertaking legitimate scrutiny. That legislation must include a filter mechanism that allows courts to swiftly dispose of SLAPPs; an extension of early dismissal procedures; cost protections for defendants in all SLAPP cases, not just those involving financial crime; and the empowerment of courts to impose financial penalties on those who bring forward abusive SLAPP claims or use SLAPPs relentlessly against multiple claimants. We must also strengthen the regulatory powers of professional standards bodies and ensure that there is robust enforcement against lawyers and law firms that engage in abusive SLAPP litigation, while at the same time improving access to legal advice and support for those facing SLAPP threats. This is a position that the Liberal Democrats have consistently held—we were the only party to support such legislation in our manifesto in 2024—but the point is now clearly recognised across the House. The previous Conservative Government’s amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act provided protections in cases of economic crime, as has this Government’s public recognition of the issues in this area. We have seen two private Members’ Bills in this Session containing anti-SLAPP provisions, including one due to be presented by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) in November. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s position on those two private Members’ Bills and whether it is the Government’s intention to support them in their passage through the House? Could she outline what conversations she is having or planning to have with the legal profession to stamp out these sorts of practices? The current context, the attention and the support across the House demonstrate that the time is right to take steps to protect victims and protect the chance of equitable justice. That will only happen with legislation that stamps out malpractice as early as possible, avoiding extortionate costs for victims and allowing the truth to finally be heard.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  As the Prime Minister looks ahead to what is predicted to be one of the wettest winters on record, my constituents are expecting more of the same: Southern Water pumping sewage into our precious chalk stream, the River Lavant, which feeds directly into Chichester harbour. What does he believe is an acceptable timescale to get to grips with the water industry and regulate it properly, rather than a review that has delayed everything and is limited in scope?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Time and again, everybody in this debate has come back to the word “community”, and I believe that coastal communities do it like nobody else. Although my Chichester constituency is affluent, that affluence often means that funding does not make it to the pockets of deprivation that are present, especially those on my coast. People look at somewhere like Chichester and say, “They don’t need the support,” so those communities are far more likely to fall between the cracks. I represent the coastal communities of Pagham, the Witterings and Selsey. Selsey translates directly to “seal island”, because even though it is part of the mainland, there is one road in and out, so if there is an accident on that road, it is literally an island. The people there do community like nobody else. When I think of Selsey, I think of the Selsey Care Shop, the Selsey Venture Club, the Selsey Beach Litter Ninjas and the Selsey Sea Bathing Society. All those charitable organisations and communities come together to support each other in tackling poverty in the area, as well as the isolation and loneliness. The other thing that happens in Selsey is that the population doubles during the summer, because of all the holidaymakers who come to enjoy our beautiful coastline. Despite that doubling of its population, Selsey does not receive extra police officers to patrol the streets or extra support for an ambulance service, and there are not suddenly fewer cars on the road in Selsey. No extra resource comes in and no extra infrastructure is provided. Instead, it is the community that ends up stepping up and providing support. When we think about isolation and hidden deprivation within our coastal communities, I have to say that I see those things all the time in places such as Selsey. I am grateful that we have amazing charitable organisations that help the people affected and try to fix the problems where so often statutory services have failed.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, and she is right to highlight how long it has taken to get here. I commend the Government for ensuring that we eventually got to this point. These scandals have been uncovered despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputations and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better. The efforts of campaigners are what have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field and address the imbalance between the power of the state and that of the ordinary individual. That is why we Liberal Democrats have, at every stage, welcomed the provisions in the Bill, but it was clear at the beginning of this year that there were major gaps in relation to the carve-out for the security services that needed to be addressed. Campaigners rightly pointed to the role that the intelligence services have played in the past in covering up mistakes and failing to take accountability. Last week there were reports that MI5 had lied in court about Agent X, who had violently abused his partner. Likewise, last year we had the Stakeknife inquiry—Operation Kenova—which raised serious questions about the running of, and collusion with, British informants, while once again highlighting the immense difficulties of obtaining information from the security services. It is clear that these organisations have at times suffered from the same protectionist, inward-looking faults that other public organisations have suffered from. It would have been completely unacceptable for there to have been a carve-out, especially considering that mechanisms already exist to allow for information with national security implications to be heard behind closed doors. The breakthrough announced over the weekend is welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and will come as a relief to all those wanting to see this Bill progress. I commend Members on the Government Front Bench who secured it, and those no longer there, particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who worked so hard to get the legislation to the place it is today. I know from her contributions in debates, her willingness and openness to meet me and Liberal Democrat colleagues to hear our concerns, and her engagement with campaign organisations and families, that she has fought to deliver the Hillsborough law as it was intended by those involved in the campaign. The Bill Committee took place eight months ago, so it was fun going through all the notes to remind myself exactly what was said. I pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House who scrutinised the legislation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I know they sought to ensure that victims and their loved ones remained at the centre of the Bill and that their concerns regarding the drafting were heard. We have worked alongside them to ensure that no stone has been left unturned in seeking to secure the best possible outcomes in this legislation. Our amendments are all aimed at tightening the gaps that we can see in the legislation. First, there is the importance of whistleblowers, who, in many of the tragedies mentioned today, have provided vital information at great personal risk for the public good. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing within organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. Amendment 3 ensures that public authorities involved in an inquiry or investigation demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that individuals can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation. Amendment 6 would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information about to whom a person can make a protected disclosure and how that person will be protected. The Minister talked about additional guidance being provided with the legislation, so will she, when she sums up, set out whether there will be an expectation that that will include how to make a protected disclosure? We would have liked this Bill to go further on whistleblower protection, but much of what we proposed was considered out of scope for the Bill. I urge the Government and the new Administration to look more widely at what can be done to protect those who attempt to expose wrongdoing in the future. A statutory duty of candour in the NHS has existed since 2014, yet we know that there remains a culture of retiring or firing staff who dare to speak up. Our new clause 2 would create an offence for anyone who wilfully destroys relevant records after a major incident that could lead to an inquest or inquiry. New clause 3 is aimed at providing a national oversight mechanism through the publication of an annual independent report on compliance with the Act, as has been mentioned multiple times already in the debate. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to have an overnight mechanism, and similar amendments have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that the legislation is fully up to date with modern investigations by making it clear that digital messages must be provided as evidence to investigations. The Bill includes provisions for the inclusion of subcontractors under the duty of candour, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Amendment 4 would therefore extend those provisions to all subcontractors throughout the chain of provision. We need only look at the way local authorities subcontract to understand that most working within the public sector are subcontractors of subcontractors of subcontractors. We believe that the scope needs to be extended to include those. The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those attempting to bring these scandals to light have faced well-resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations, but we do not believe that the provisions go far enough and we will be seeking to amend them in the other place. Amendments 11 and 12 would ensure that public officials do not escape their responsibilities when they cease to hold public office, and that they remain accountable for their actions even if they have since resigned, retired or been shuffled out.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that chairs of inquiries and inquests already have the power to hold closed sessions in private if they are looking at information that is sensitive or potentially poses a risk to our national security? That already exists, and the measures in the Bill do not impact that at all—it is already done on a daily basis in inquiries.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name on behalf of my party. Up and down the country, those who have been failed by state institutions, unheard and ignored for years, will today be relieved that this hurdle has been cleared and the Hillsborough law can finally progress. I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are with us in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance through years of campaigning, and for never saying, “That’ll do”, and instead making sure that the Hillsborough law was delivered in full. This is known affectionately as the Hillsborough law, but it represents many victims and their loved ones. Be it the Post Office scandal, the Manchester Arena attack, the contaminated blood scandal, Grenfell Tower, nuclear weapons testing veterans, the pelvic mesh scandal, LGBT veterans, or any of the many others, those individuals have stood up for the voiceless and demanded change. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries.