Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · World Asthma Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important and timely debate to mark World Asthma Day, which took place last week. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, he is a tireless advocate for the millions of people across the UK living with lung conditions—and, indeed, multiple other conditions. As my party’s health spokesperson, I have been in this Chamber many times for debates that he has secured. He is certainly a credit to the less-spoken-about health conditions. His commitment to raising awareness and driving change in health is deeply appreciated, and I commend him for his leadership. To mark World Asthma Day 2025, the Global Initiative for Asthma has chosen the theme “Make Inhaled Treatments Accessible for ALL”. It is pertinent that this debate follows one on international development and global health—a powerful reminder of the need to ensure people with asthma have access to the treatments they need, not just to manage their day-to-day symptoms, but to prevent life-threatening attacks. Asthma remains one of the most common chronic health conditions worldwide, yet, as the hon. Gentleman clearly set out, progress over the past two decades have been slow. Lung conditions are now the third biggest killer in the UK. Hospitalisations due to respiratory illness have doubled in the past 20 years, and the UK has seen little improvement in outcomes over that time. Those are not just statistics—they are people, and they reflect a systematic failure to treat respiratory health with the seriousness it demands. There are 7.2 million people living with diagnosed asthma in the UK today, including 2 million children—one in nine adults and one in eight children. The UK’s asthma death rate is higher than the OECD average, and the highest in Europe. Every day, four people in this country die from asthma attacks. Every 10 seconds, someone experiences an asthma attack that could be life-threatening. That should be a wake-up call. In my constituency of Chichester, 7.5% of GP patients aged six and over have been prescribed some form of asthma-related medication in the past year. That statistic is higher than the national average, and it represents hundreds of families trying to manage a condition that, with the right support, should not prevent anyone from living a full and active life. Yet time and again those are the families let down in other areas, by poor housing, air pollution—as the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) mentioned—inconsistent care and a public health system that has been hollowed out over the past decade. The UK should be a world leader in public health. We have a long history of innovation, grassroots sports, high-quality food production and leading medical research, but, thanks to the previous Government, we now lag behind our international peers. It is profoundly troubling that our children experience some of the worst asthma outcomes across Europe and other high-income countries. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to take urgent action. First and foremost, we must reverse the Conservative cuts to public health funding, but we must not stop there. We need a comprehensive approach that tackles the root causes of poor lung health, from poverty and cold, damp housing to polluted air and hazardous working environments. We want an increase to the public health grant delivered by local authorities, with part of that funding set out for communities facing the greatest health inequalities. Those communities must be supported by co-designed solutions, including better smoking cessation services, stronger action on air quality and improvements to housing and occupational health. Prevention must be at the heart of our approach. That means investing in primary care, supporting individuals to improve their own health and giving local areas the tools they need to build healthier environments. It is one of the most effective ways that we can reduce pressure on NHS services and deliver better value for money to taxpayers. The Liberal Democrats would also take decisive action on air pollution by passing a clean air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines and establishing a new air quality agency to enforce those standards. We must do more to ensure access to consistent, high-quality care for those already living with long-term respiratory conditions such as asthma. That includes guaranteeing that people with severe asthma have access to a named GP so that they do not have to constantly retell their story to new clinicians, and increasing the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency so that new treatments can reach patients more quickly. I was on a Delegated Legislation Committee earlier this week, with the Minister, where the funding for the MHRA was increased. However, it was not clear whether that would speed up the process of getting new medicines to patients. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly pointed out, the scale of this issue demands urgency. Four asthma deaths every day and a life-threatening attack every 10 seconds are tragedies could be prevented, if only we prioritised respiratory health as we ought to. Will the Minister, therefore, commit to setting aside part of the public health grant to support those communities facing the largest health inequalities? Will the Government propose a new clean air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines, to ensure those with severe, long-term respiratory conditions are not breathing in harmful pollutants? Finally, when can we expect the publication of the 10-year health plan, and will respiratory health be included? Asthma is not just a clinical issue; it is a question of justice and of whether we are willing to tackle the social and environmental factors that make people ill in the first place. I hope the Minister will reflect seriously on what has been said today.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State accept my warm invitation to visit my constituency and sit in traffic with me so she can experience what my constituents experience morning, noon and night on the A27, which is strangling economic growth in the area and preventing investment?

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  There has been real interest in Westminster Hall debates on maternity services and the recently announced closure of the maternity service and special baby care unit at Yeovil hospital. Will the Leader of the House commit to time in the Chamber to debate the failure to implement in full the Ockenden recommendations that would see the improved maternity care we need across the UK?

• 13 May 2025 · Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing today’s wide-ranging debate. It is hard not to get stuck on flooding, developer responsibilities and planning, but I will try to focus on just two key points in the short time that I have. My criticisms of the planning system are well recorded in Hansard , as is my support for the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make water companies statutory consultees, which we need to see happen. My constituents in Chichester know how fortunate we are to live in such a beautiful part of the UK, but we are seeing sites that have been identified as at risk of flooding still being approved for development if they are classified as strategic development sites in the local plans that were written based on an outdated flood risk methodology. That is deeply concerning for my communities, which are watching fields flood year on year and then seeing houses built on those very fields. The situation has been worsened by historical planning failures. The previous administration at Chichester district council allowed the local plan to expire, which left developers to ride roughshod over areas such as the Manhood peninsula, a fragile, low-lying coastal region that is increasingly vulnerable to extreme flooding. Climate change is exacerbating the already serious flood and erosion risks on the English coast. In 2018, the Climate Change Committee said: “the current approach to coastal management in England is unsustainable in the face of climate change.” The flood risk modelling fails to reflect the lived experience of many of my constituents. The Manhood peninsula has already seen numerous floods since 2012, which have displaced families from their homes and caused widespread fear that does not go away once the water has receded. I would like to talk briefly about coastal squeeze. Natural England estimates that 58% of the salt marsh habitat in Chichester harbour has been lost since 1946, and that we are losing around three football pitches-worth of salt marsh every year. To address those concerns, I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make national landscapes, such as the one responsible for Chichester harbour, statutory consultees in the planning process. I hope that Bill Committee members on both sides of the House will support it, because places such as Chichester harbour are crying out for a seat at the table so that they can relay their concerns about the planning process for areas of significant scientific importance.

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, for the first time, I think. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this vital debate. My constituency of Chichester has been grappling with serious housing challenges, which have been continually worsened by a deeply flawed planning process. The demand for social housing vastly outstrips supply. Private rentals are prohibitively expensive, and sky-rocketing house prices have made home ownership increasingly out of reach for those who have grown up in my constituency. Housing developments should enhance our communities, delivering affordable, sustainable homes alongside essential infrastructure, but the current approach does the opposite. The standard method for assessing housing need imposes arbitrary national targets on local authorities, which ignore the specific needs and constraints of each area. It fails to deliver genuinely affordable homes and does little to reflect local demand or geography. As my hon. Friend highlighted, the standard method fails to address above-inflation house price rises. Our average house price in Chichester, according to the Office for National Statistics, is £454,000. In just one year, to February 2025, the price of a semi-detached house in Chichester rose by 8.1%, yet Chichester has seen huge-scale development in recent years. Meanwhile, the average salary in my constituency is under £30,000, which is below the UK median. When new homes are delivered, they often enter the market at prices higher than the local median, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. That artificially inflates the affordability ratio, which then increases future housing targets, creating a vicious cycle that drives prices even further out of reach. It does nothing to address the real challenges that my constituents face in getting on the housing ladder. Instead, it leaves new developments affordable only to those who are moving into the area, not those already living there. At the same time, councils face an uphill battle in trying to ensure that developments, required by the same standard method, include adequate levels of social and affordable housing. At present, we have over 2,000 families on the wait list for social homes in Chichester. Any development of 11 homes or more is expected to provide at least 10% as affordable housing. Both Chichester and Arun district councils, which sit within my constituency, request 30% social and affordable housing in their local plans to address some of the unmet need locally, but those targets are continuously undermined by viability assessments submitted by the developers, because of the high land prices in our constituency. A recent example is a 2,200 home development to the west of Bersted, approved by Arun district council on the basis that it was included in the Conservative local plan from 2022. There is strong opposition in the community to the proposal, not only because those homes will add to the strain on local infrastructure, but because only 10% of those homes will be “affordable”. The very definition of affordable is fundamentally flawed when even 80% of unaffordable is still unaffordable for so many people. The developer claimed that a higher proportion of social and affordable homes on the site would have made the project commercially unviable, so the council was left with no power to enforce its requested levels of social and affordable houses. That is why I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, calling on the Government to adopt a separate social housing target. I am sure that would be welcomed by local authorities up and down the UK, because they are best placed to know what their communities need, not the developers that are trying to build in them. The standard method also fundamentally fails to consider any geographical constraints, which ties the hands of councils during land allocation. In my area, 70% of Chichester district is covered by national park, with an additional 5% designated as national landscape at Chichester harbour. That means that our ambitious housing target, which has doubled under the Labour Government, must be met within just 25% of available land, yet the housing target remains unadjusted. We need a method for assessing local housing that actually works for communities—one that recognises local constraints, delivers genuinely affordable housing, protects the national landscape and ensures that every development contributes positively to the places that we call home. This will not change until the top-down approach of the standard method for assessing local housing need is reformed to genuinely reflect community need, and until local authorities are given the power to challenge and regulate developers effectively. I beg the Minister to look again at the standard method so that we can truly address the local housing need for areas such as mine in Chichester.

• 12 May 2025 · Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her speech. As she says, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is a world-class regulator that should be innovative, transparent and truly independent, while maintaining high standards and always putting public health first. In recent years, however, confidence in MHRA standards has been undermined by the Primodos, vaginal mesh and infected blood scandals. It is crucial that we ensure that those mistakes are never repeated, and that the MHRA regains the public’s trust. The MHRA has suffered from insufficient staffing levels and inflexibility around funding and resourcing, and patients are the ones paying the price. The Government should aim for nothing less than halving the time in which new treatments reach patients for life-threatening conditions such as cancer. The Liberal Democrats therefore support additional resource for the MHRA, but that must go hand in hand with greater capacity and a stronger service to address past failings. Can the Minister confirm that when the regulations are made, we will see an increase in the speed at which patients receive treatments? Can she tell us when that improvement will be delivered? Concerns were expressed during the consultation that fee hikes, some of which exceed inflation, will stifle innovation and undermine important research. What assurances can the Minister provide that there will be no deterioration in the number or quality of new products? Is she confident that payment waivers and easement measures are sufficient to stop small and medium-sized enterprises significantly cutting back their activity?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  With limited time, I will share the voices of some of the 200 constituents who have been in touch with me about the proposed changes to personal independence payments. For example, one worried father, Robert, contacted me on behalf of his son, Richard, who lives with functional neurological disorder. Robert told me how vital PIP is to Richard, who will never be able to work again. They feel completely abandoned by these proposed cuts and, after countless attempts to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions, they feel ignored and disillusioned. Another example is James, who lives with multiple mental health conditions that have left him hospitalised several times in the past. He wrote to me saying: “Nearly all my PIP goes towards paying for my guardian angel carer. Without that support, I would have to move into a supported living arrangement, which would make my mental health problems much worse and I would end up in hospital again. I don’t want to lose my independence as I am just managing with the support I have now.” For James, it is clear that PIP is the difference between managing or entering crisis. Meanwhile, Susan is the sole carer and appointee for several disabled members of her family. Under these proposals, at least two of them would lose all of the support they get. She wrote to me saying: “I honestly am broken, life is hopeless—I can’t feed my family if these cuts go through. Please can you join us in fighting the cuts.” My constituents in Chichester are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking to live with dignity, fairness and, importantly, independence, which is what PIP gives them. The changes are the exact opposite of what the Government claim they want to achieve.

• 6 May 2025 · Eye Care: 10-year Health Plan · Hansard source

  More

  NHS Sussex ICB is one of only five in England not to commission a minor eye conditions service—known as MECS—in community optometry settings. That means that patients in Chichester with urgent or minor eye issues have to either join the 8 am queue for a GP appointment or go to their hospital rather than being seen quickly on the high street. Given that 99.9% of MECS patients elsewhere in England are seen within 24 hours, will the Minister set out what action he is taking to ensure that those services are commissioned consistently across all ICBs within the 10-year health plan?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing today’s important and timely debate, following Black Maternal Health Awareness Week earlier this month. Her opening remarks were comprehensive and thoughtful. I am always pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a passionate advocate for improved maternity services in Nottingham and across the UK; I am pleased to serve on the APPG with her at the helm. Women are at their most vulnerable during pregnancy, as they carry another human life, and they deserve the very best care. They have more touchpoints with the NHS than they will have for most of their lives. We engage with the NHS when we are born and when we need to access care at the end of our lives. When we are carrying a child, we have more moments in front of medical professionals than for the majority of our lives. Following its inspection of 131 maternity units, the Care Quality Commission found that 65% were not safe for women to give birth, 47% required improvement on safety, and 18% were inadequate. The commission warned that it is concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity care. Those risks are particularly stark for women of colour in this country, for whom pregnancy continues to carry an unacceptable level of danger. As the Darzi report highlighted, black women are almost three times as likely as white women to die during childbirth, while neonatal mortality among the most deprived quintile is more than double that among the least deprived. That is nothing less than a national scandal. Maternity care is an issue close to my heart, having had two very different experiences giving birth in my local hospital in Chichester. I tabled an early-day motion on maternity care and secured a Backbench Business debate in this Chamber on that subject just two months ago. Like the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest, I am in regular contact with Donna Ockenden, who produced the Ockenden report. Her findings, along with those of Dr Bill Kirkup, show that the problems identified at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust are not isolated incidents. The same issues are systemic and widespread across many NHS trusts up and down the country. In preparation for the previous debate on maternity services as a whole, I spoke to families across the country who had experienced devastating failures in the system. They went into hospital expecting the joyful outcome of going home with a child, but instead they had to return without their baby, carrying the trauma of that experience for the rest of their lives. As the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned, the MBRRACE-UK report for 2021 to 2023 confirms that inequalities in maternal mortality rates persist, with a nearly threefold difference among women from black ethnic backgrounds, and an almost twofold difference among women from Asian ethnic backgrounds, compared with white women. Women living in the most deprived areas continue to experience maternal mortality rates that are twice those in the least deprived areas. Care for black women who experience stillbirth or neonatal death is often inadequate. Ethnicity is still not routinely recognised as a risk factor in, for example, the screening and prevention of conditions such as gestational diabetes. Births to black mothers are almost twice as likely to be investigated for NHS safety failings, and black mothers are twice as likely to suffer from perinatal mental illness compared with their white counterparts. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has long talked about these disparities. She introduced the Miscarriage and Stillbirth (Black and Asian Women) Bill in 2022, which sought to require the Secretary of State to lay annual reports before Parliament on efforts to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth rates among black and Asian women, but unfortunately it was not carried over into the next Session. When so many of our conversations in this House and in the other place are about the economic pressure we are under as a country, it is worth reflecting that, on top of the enormous human toll of this issue, failure also has a financial cost. Obstetric claims make up just 13% of clinical negligence cases handled by NHS Resolution, but they cost more than £1 billion a year, which is nearly 60% of the total cost. Across the country, families face unbearable grief and trauma because of failures in maternity care, and that burden is falling disproportionately on black women and families. We Liberal Democrats are committed to transforming maternity services to make the UK the safest place in the world to have a baby, and we fully support the work of Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in drawing attention to these critical issues. Our general election manifesto pledged to revolutionise perinatal mental health support, not only for those currently pregnant and for new mothers but for those who have endured miscarriage or stillbirth. We have been clear that the Government must, as a priority of the highest urgency, implement all the immediate and essential actions recommended by the Ockenden report. It is deeply concerning that, years after the tragedies at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust, failures are still widespread and efforts to address them appear piecemeal. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) recently questioned the Department on the implementation of the Ockenden recommendations, it was alarming that it could not confirm whether the actions had been implemented, nor did it appear to have a system for centrally monitoring the progress. The Minister pointed to the three-year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services as the Department’s main response. Deeper analysis shows serious shortcomings. Many measures in the plan have no meaningful numerical targets, which makes real accountability for the difference made by the plan very hard to track. Targets for expanding access to perinatal mental health support are being missed, even as some improvement is noted, and staff satisfaction indicators remain worryingly low, with some measures still recording fewer than half of staff expressing confidence in educational opportunities or in their management’s response to unsafe practices. The target set in 2010 to halve maternal mortality looks increasingly out of reach. Maternal mortality rates did not fall for a decade, and they actually increased between 2021 and 2023. Worse still, no updated data has been published for the last two years on the rates of serious brain injury, stillbirth, neonatal mortality or preterm birth. Without transparency and accountability, women will continue to be failed, and black women, who already bear the brunt of the disparities, will continue to be disproportionately harmed. That is why I ask the Minister to commit to reviewing these issues urgently, to meet me and my colleagues from the Liberal Democrat health team to discuss a more effective plan to improve maternity safety, and to set out a clear path to address the deep disparities in black maternal health. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cross-Government strategy, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, with annual progress reports on reducing miscarriage and stillbirth rates among ethnic minorities. We also call for increased funding for public health initiatives, with a portion earmarked to allow communities facing the worst health inequalities to co-produce solutions tailored to their specific needs. We propose the establishment of a health creation unit in the Cabinet Office to lead work across Government to improve health and tackle inequalities. Black women have waited too long for their concerns to be heard, for the system to change and for justice to be done. We owe it to them and to every woman, family and baby in this country to get maternity services right. No woman should fear for her life or her child’s life because of the colour of her skin or the postcode that she lives in. We have to do better.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Construction Skills Training · Hansard source

  More

  Further education colleges such as Chichester college in my constituency are vital to the delivery of construction apprenticeships and skills training. Many colleges, however, have raised a concern with me that a loophole in the last Government’s Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, which brought colleges back into the public sector, means that they cannot go out and get public investment into their colleges. What is the Minister doing to address their concerns and ensure that FE colleges can invest in the facilities and courses needed to train our future construction workforce?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Chichester harbour in my constituency is the largest recreational boating harbour in Europe, but the damage being done to its ecosystem is stark. A recent study by the Clean Harbours Partnership found 105 pharmaceuticals, pesticides and recreational drugs in the water, with the amounts going up 100 times directly after a sewage spill. Does my hon. Friend agree that tourism is incredibly important for areas such as his and mine, and that therefore we must have clean water?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member support the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), aptly named the sunshine Bill, which would make solar panels mandatory on the roof of all new homes?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Whiplash Injury Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The changes today are simple: the compensation tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in whiplash claims are being uplifted by approximately 15% to reflect inflation since the original 2021 figures were set, with a buffer to account for future inflation. These updates are welcome, but also present us with an opportunity to reflect on the broader balance we strike between tackling fraud and protecting the rights of those with legitimate injuries. Whiplash has long been a contentious area of UK personal injury law. We have one of the highest rates of whiplash claims in the world, which has undoubtedly contributed to the rise in motor insurance costs, and whiplash claims have historically added billions of pounds to insurance costs. In my constituency of Chichester, the picture is particularly concerning. According to a study by the Driving Instructors Association, Chichester is now the most accident-prone city in the UK, reporting 232 accidents per 100,000 residents, which is 54% higher than the national average. Even more alarmingly, Chichester has the highest fatality rate of any city, at 5.6 fatal accidents per 100,000 residents. These are not just statistics; they are lives lost and families changed forever. That underlines the real-world impact of road safety and why fair, accessible compensation for those injured on our roads is vital. The 2021 reforms that introduced fixed tariffs and mandatory medical assessments have had an impact, and the number of whiplash claims has declined, but whiplash still accounts for a large share of personal injury claims, and the need to ensure fairness in the system remains. We must remember that behind every claim is a person, often in pain, unable to work, potentially scared to go back out on the roads and navigating an unfamiliar legal system. For them, the process must be simple, fair and accessible. Victims should never be discouraged from seeking rightful compensation because of excessive bureaucracy or overly rigid procedures. That is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently advocated for a balanced approach. During debate on the Civil Liability Act 2018, my colleagues in the other place, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, worked hard to push for stronger safeguards. They argued that the definition of “whiplash injury” should be written into primary legislation to allow full parliamentary scrutiny, and they pushed for compensation to be based on Judicial College guidelines, not simply on fixed tariffs, to preserve judicial discretion and to reflect the severity of injuries. They also urged the previous Government to ensure that any savings made from reducing fraudulent claims are passed on to consumers through lower insurance premiums—a promise that the insurance industry has been slow to honour and which is certainly not reflected in the consumer experience. We also look forward to the findings of the review on whether those savings have been delivered to customers. We continue to support a system that is firm on fraud but fair to victims. Yes, we need robust safeguards, such as mandatory medical assessments and closer co-ordination between regulators, insurers and law enforcement to root out dishonest claims, but that must not come at the expense of those with genuine injuries. It is critical that review mechanisms are in place not just to track inflation, but to assess whether the tariff system continues to serve justice. We believe that the Government must do more to simplify the claims process, particularly for those who do not have or cannot access legal representation. The updated tariff is a necessary correction for inflation, but it must not be seen as the end of the matter. The long-term success of the system depends on three things: maintaining fairness for claimants, preserving judicial discretion where needed and ensuring that promised savings are felt by customers. We must remain focused on people, not just on policy.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  John, my constituent in Chichester, is 12. He sent an email to Beacon House, a therapy provider in Chichester, which said: “I’m really sad and worried that I won’t be able to see Becky any more.”— Becky is his therapist. The email continued: “Can someone please tell me how to not feel so sad?” John will be delighted that his support from Becky will continue, but the lack of clarity has been felt acutely by vulnerable families, who find uncertainty incredibly triggering. Will the Minister please provide clarity on the Floor of the House today—that we will not be back here next year having the same discussion?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Eating Disorder Awareness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing today’s important debate and for her tireless work over six years as chair of the all-party group on eating disorders. She has been a consistent and compassionate advocate for better awareness, better services and better outcomes for those affected. I am also pleased to see the Minister’s sharp elbows here in Westminster Hall today, as described by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Eating disorders are among the most serious and complex mental health illnesses. As the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out, it is estimated that more than 1.2 million people across the UK are living with an eating disorder, and, tragically, eating disorders carry the highest mortality rate of any mental health condition. Instead of stepping up to meet the scale of the crisis, however, services are being cut. The statistics are shocking: in 2023 the proportion of 11 to 16-year-olds with an eating disorder had risen fivefold from 2017, and among 17 to 19-year-olds the rate had surged from 1.8% to 12.5% over the same period. Girls are disproportionately affected, with rates four times higher than boys, although we are seeing a concerning trend of more males suffering with eating disorders, as highlighted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said, numbers across the UK have risen dramatically since the pandemic, but behind each of those numbers are young people whose lives, education and futures are being taken away from them by this illness. Hospital admissions for eating disorders have doubled over the past decade, yet the national treatment targets set under the previous Conservative Government in 2019—for 95% of urgent cases to be seen within one week and 95% of routine cases within four—were dropped by that same Administration under the 2024-25 mental health national priorities, or success measures, and have not been reintroduced by the current Labour Government. That is a moral failure and it must be reversed. Instead, most areas in England are planning real-term cuts in eating disorder provision. As many Members have highlighted, 24 of the 42 integrated care boards across the NHS in England are projected to reduce their spending for under-18s in 2024-25 once inflation is factored in. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that even current levels of funding are too low to cope with the rising demand. Cutting further will only make the crisis worse. We must understand the true cost of inaction. Eating disorders strip people of their health, their relationships, their adolescence and, in too many cases, their lives. Still, many people are being told they are not thin enough to receive care. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for his speech reflecting his experience, and that of parents across the UK, of waiting for a child to hit an arbitrary target on a scale that suggests that their mental health is bad enough to get the help that they so desperately need. We know that early intervention is effective. If people are not believed or not seen as ill enough, they are left to deteriorate until a crisis becomes a tragedy. The crisis is being compounded by the influence of social media and online platforms. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) told us, it is a “crisis of modernity” and of the increased societal pressures on our young people. Recent research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that algorithms on platforms such as YouTube are actively recommending harmful eating disorder-related content to young users. These are not passive platforms. They are powerful tools that are shaping the mental health of our children, and they must be held to account. I do not identify as a young person any more—my children definitely do not identify me as a young person—but I see it on my algorithms. I actively seek out body-positive profiles and yet what appears on my feed is people telling me that I can lose weight in 28 days, or shape myself for summer. Our young people see this all too often and think it is the norm. We as Liberal Democrats believe that addressing the crisis requires a bold and evidence-led strategy. That means building specialist support into the NHS, not as a niche service but as a fundamental part of mental health care. It means embedding early intervention through mental health hubs in every community, so that young people can access help long before they reach crisis point. We are calling for mental health check-ups or a mental health MOT at key points in people’s lives, when they are most vulnerable to developing serious illnesses. We believe every school should have a dedicated mental health professional so that children can get support early and in a familiar environment, without stigma or delay. Lastly, we must also recognise the crucial role of families. Unpaid carers, parents, siblings, partners and children are often left to navigate a fragmented and under-resourced system alone. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the Government must work with and not against carers to expand the support they need and deserve. No parent should have to fight for their child to be taken seriously. I saw that fight in my own patch of Chichester, where a mother had to leave work for two hours every day to go to her child’s school to sit in a room with them so that they were supported to eat their lunch. The school could not facilitate a member of staff to sit with that child, who was tackling a very serious eating disorder but who was desperate to stay in school. Campaigners like Hope Virgo have done an extraordinary job of raising awareness, but it should not always fall to campaigners and grieving families to fill the gaps left by Government inaction. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bath in calling for the exploration of an eating disorder national strategy. This is a national crisis and it is costing lives. The Government must listen to those on the frontlines—patients, carers, clinicians and campaigners. They are not calling for sympathy. They just want action, and we owe it to them to respond.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The Chichester-based charity My Sisters’ House gave vital wraparound trauma-informed support to 28 women in 2015. Last year, it supported more than 1,700 women. The charity has raised the ongoing issue of cross-allegations, whereby abusers are falsely accusing their victims as a means of keeping the control and the emotional abuse going. What steps is the Home Secretary taking with the Justice Secretary to ensure that the system properly recognises this form of continued abuse and protects victims from being retraumatised?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps her Department is taking with police forces to tackle violence against women and girls.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this important debate. I am particularly pleased to see the Minister in her place, which shows the Government’s recognition that this is a public health issue. Every drug-related death is a preventable tragedy. Every life lost represents not just statistics in a report, but families shattered, futures lost and communities left to pick up the pieces. As a Government and a society, we have a moral obligation to do better. The reality is stark, and it has been laid out very well by Members across the House in the debate: drug-related deaths have reached record highs. They are not just the consequence of addiction but often the result of inadequate support, stigma—as has been mentioned by many hon. Members—and a failure to adopt evidence-based strategies. In 2023, more than 5,000 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales. That is the highest number since records began in 1993 and 11% higher than in the previous year. My local hospital, which is in Chichester, records hundreds of A&E attendances involving drug use. For too long, the response to drug use has been focused on criminalisation rather than treatment. However, as hon. Members have said today, we cannot arrest our way out of the crisis. Those struggling with addiction need access to healthcare, not handcuffs. That means properly funding rehabilitation services, expanding mental health support and ensuring that no one seeking help is turned away due to lack of resources. For me, it is personal. I have witnessed family members self-medicate with drugs when mental health support was unavailable to them. My own dear dad battled with alcohol addiction throughout his adult life. Although it was a related cancer that took him in the end, the addiction had taken him away long before that. In fact, one of the many reasons that I am proud to be a Liberal Democrat is that we pledged, in our general election manifesto, to provide mental health MOTs at key points in our lives when we are most vulnerable to a change in our mental health. I often wonder if my dad would still be here today had he ever had the opportunity to tell a professional that he was struggling. Across the world, we have seen that harm reduction saves lives. I would like to acknowledge the role that hard-working GPs, nurses, community pharmacists and other health professionals play in supporting access to medication and safe consumption spaces, which is taking an evidence-based approach and using it to prevent deaths. In Glasgow, as many Members across the House have mentioned, where drug deaths are at crisis levels, pilots of safer consumption rooms are now under way. I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), as well as other colleagues from across the House, have visited those centres. We should be looking at those models with open minds, rather than relying on outdated ideologies, because the goal is simple: we need to keep people alive for long enough to access treatment and rebuild their lives. As the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, the savings that we find across health and justice far outweigh the investment needed in those centres. We also need a joined-up approach across the country, which lays out the most effective pilot projects so that they can be rolled out to other areas. In its February 2024 report, the Public Accounts Committee identified that there were delays in allocating funding from the 2021 drugs strategy to local authorities, and a continued lack of understanding about what works to prevent people from using drugs. It is unacceptable that there was a 14% underspend in the funding allocated to the strategy in 2023-24, when it is clearly desperately needed across the country to prevent deaths. Of course, prevention must also mean cutting off the supply of dangerous drugs at the source. We need stronger action to stop organised crime groups profiting from misery. That includes tackling county lines operations, which exploit vulnerable young people and push deadly substances into our communities. It is not a partisan issue; we must work together across the House to ensure that harm reduction, prevention and rehabilitation are at the heart of our national strategy. At the end of the day, it is not about politics; it is about people and ensuring that families do not have to endure the heartbreak of losing a loved one to drugs. At its core, it is about saving lives.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member says that from a place of experience and knowledge. Who am I to speak against anything he says as the expert in the room? I totally agree that that would provide those women some reassurance that their cases have been heard and recognised by the Government. Finally, we are still waiting for a formal response from the Government to the Hughes report. In August, that response was promised “in due course”, but “due course” has come and gone. These women have waited long enough. People who have already suffered for years should not be forced to wait any longer for the compensation and recognition that they deserve. Let us end this culture of delay, disbelief and denial and do what we should have done years ago: listen, apologise and act.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing today’s timely and important debate on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. She has been a tireless champion for those harmed by pelvic mesh and for children born with birth defects as a result of sodium valproate. I commend her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate—that is a mouthful and could have been a bit shorter—of which I am also a member. In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that at least 10,000 women in England have been harmed by vaginal mesh implants, some involving the mesh slicing into their bladder, bowels or vaginal wall, leaving them in permanent pain, sometimes unable to walk, work or have sex, leaving their lives changed profoundly. As multiple hon. Members have mentioned, including the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the campaign group Sling the Mesh believes that the true number could be closer to 40,000 women. When Dr Henrietta Hughes agreed to produce this report, she made one thing very clear: this was not to be another review that just gathers dust—this report must lead to action, not just words. We are now a year on and the people affected are still waiting. The Hughes report makes the case plainly: there is a clear need for redress. These women were, in most cases, not failed by a single doctor or a one-off error. They were failed by the system, by healthcare structures, by regulators and by Governments who did not listen when they should have. The redress we need is not about blame but about restorative justice. It should be co-designed with the patients, and it should be distinct from adversarial court proceedings where, as other hon. Members have mentioned, women have to relive their experience and their trauma, time and again. The Hughes report recommended establishing an independent redress agency. The lack of clarity on creating a bespoke redress scheme has left patients in limbo, which is deepening the harm—on that point, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) shared his useful insight and learnings from the infected blood scandal. Several women in my constituency of Chichester have shared their stories with me: stories of being dismissed by clinicians, of medical records being incomplete, inaccessible or not reflecting the true circumstances that these women are in, and of suffering through chronic pain and ill health even after the mesh has been removed. I have met two of those women in person. I met one at her home because she is so profoundly injured and traumatised that she no longer leaves her property for any reason. With no access to social media or the outside world, my constituent had no idea that there were others like her, or that there is a national campaign for justice. She felt alone, embarrassed and broken by her circumstances, so I promised to stand by and with her, and with the thousands of others, up and down the country, who have been failed. I take this opportunity to mention Paula Goss: a national campaigner, and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). Paula was affected by a mesh procedure that was not covered by the original Cumberlege review. The surgeon involved was found guilty of serious misconduct but only suspended for six months. Of the 462 patients harmed at the Spire private hospital and the Southmead hospital, just five were called as witnesses to the General Medical Council. When Paula tried to complain, she was—as many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have noted in this debate—told that she was out of time, and that it was not in the public interest to waive the deadline. How can we call that justice? It is not justice or accountability. Cases like that of Paula, and those raised by my constituents in Chichester, are why we Liberal Democrats believe that the entire set of recommendations in the Cumberlege report must be implemented without further delay. This scandal is not limited to mesh and sodium valproate. The same approach must be extended to other medical scandals, such as Primodos. We cannot continue to treat each crisis as an isolated issue, and need a system-wide approach to patient safety and accountability. That means a duty of candour on public officials. The Liberal Democrats would achieve that by establishing an office of the whistleblower so that safety concerns can be raised without fear or delay. It also means embedding patient voices in the heart of our healthcare system, not as an afterthought but as a fundamental principle. Earlier this year, 100 women secured a financial settlement from mesh manufacturers, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of women who deserve redress. Every single woman affected by this scandal deserves proper compensation, not just those women able to pursue lengthy and difficult legal claims.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Passenger Rail Performance · Hansard source

  More

  Given that one in five trains operated by Southern Rail arriving at Chichester station is late, and that there is no fast service connecting Chichester to London, what steps are being taken directly to improve train punctuality and reliability for my constituents, especially considering that an annual ticket is nearly £8,000?

• 27 Mar 2025 · PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Terminal illness devastates people’s finances. More than 100 terminally ill people every month are refused PIP, and every day 300 people die in poverty, having fallen through the cracks of our benefits system. Many family carers in the midst of bereavement are then left with nothing. The Government’s plans in the Green Paper say nothing about how the terminally ill or their carers will be affected by these cuts. Can the Minister guarantee today that they will not be plunged into deeper poverty?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Women’s Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago on maternity services and spoke to families across the country who have experienced failures in the system that ultimately left them without their babies to take home. It was a devastating experience for all involved. The immediate and essential actions in the Ockenden review were supported by the previous Government, and the Secretary of State for Health has been vocal in his support for their implementation. However, those families want to know how quickly they will see real change in maternity services up and down the country so that families can confidently go to deliver their babies.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents and I know how lucky we are to live in such a beautiful part of the United Kingdom. We need to see growth so that our young people can stay in their local communities, buy homes in the areas in which they have grown up, and continue to contribute to the local economy and keep Chichester thriving for generations to come; but the reality is that the planning system in my little patch of the country is not fit for purpose. With the district council’s footprint covering 70% of national park and 5% of national landscape, the ambitious total for housing allocation in our area is confined to just 25% of the available land in a ribbon that is causing coastal squeeze. This has led to high-density developments built without adequate infrastructure, leaving my residents facing daily challenges navigating the horrendous congestion on the A27, finding local school places for their children, or simply obtaining an appointment with a GP. The current system has left my communities frustrated, my local businesses unable to grow, and local councils tied up in red tape, unable to plan. Housing developers have a duty to create communities, not just buildings, but the very nature of the current planning system means that developers are putting forward proposals that look only at the patches that they are trying to develop rather than the wider picture surrounding it, and the councillors who are elected to represent their areas are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs. In both Chichester and Arun district councils, an application may be refused by the planning committees—perhaps owing to flooding risks, loss of grade 1 agricultural land or inadequate infrastructure in the area—only for that to be overturned at appeal, which is a costly, time-consuming process, taking planners out of the departments where they are trying to plan. The previous administration in Chichester district council allowed the local plan to expire, which left developers riding roughshod over areas on the Manhood peninsula, a low-lying coastal plain that is susceptible to extreme flooding which seems to be getting worse and worse. The new administration in 2023 focused on producing a robust local plan, which has now been through inspection—to the relief of communities across Chichester—and protects areas such as the Manhood peninsula while prioritising brownfield development, which all of us, on both sides of the House, agree should be the priority for planning. However, the Government’s ambitious new housing target could force the council back to square one and put all the power back into the hands of developers, because we are being asked to increase our housing target by nearly 100%. We do not have a planning crisis; we have a building crisis. Developers are land-banking consents rather than getting on with delivering the homes that we need, because demand drives up prices. Since 2007, more than 1.4 million homes given fully consented permissions have not been built. The Bill does not tackle the workforce issues or the supply chain issues, and it also does not acknowledge that water companies, which are responsible for vital infrastructure to ensure that that their reliance on storm overflows can reduce over time, are not consulted over individual planning applications because they are not statutory consultees. As the Minister knows, I have called for such consultation in other debates. Finally, there is no target for social homes in the Bill. Registered providers in Chichester are currently refusing to take on the social homes on smaller mixed-use sites, favouring the larger developments and prioritising upgrading their existing housing stock, which is putting the viability of social homes in my area at serious risk—and they are homes that we are desperately crying out for.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentions small businesses. Local hairdressers in my constituency have been in touch with me to say that given the difficult economic picture, these NICs rises will mean that they cannot take on apprentices this year. Does he agree that this NICs rise is a tax not just on business, but on education?