Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Windrush Day · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for bringing forward this important debate, as I know she does every year on behalf of her constituents. I also thank her for setting the scene so beautifully as we celebrate Windrush Day. It is a pleasure to speak today to celebrate the incredible contribution of the Windrush generation to our society, while also recognising the immense failings of the state in its treatment of them. The Caribbean and broader black communities have enriched the social fabric of the United Kingdom, adding vitality to our streets, shops and culture throughout the country. That generation and their children and grandchildren have inspired us, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) has said, and served our national interest through their contributions to our public institutions. We would be a poorer, less exciting, less dynamic and less colourful country had individuals not boarded ships such as the HMT Empire Windrush destined for the United Kingdom to help us rebuild after the second world war. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) spoke about Winston being embarrassed or ashamed by being a victim of what was a scandal, when he should just have felt pride in his contribution to our society after serving the council for decades. The hon. Member also asked some really important questions about the efficacy of the compensation scheme. We often hear similar issues raised, when we are talking about the infected blood compensation scheme or the LGBT veterans who were kicked out of the armed forces, about how these schemes run and the case workers on them. It is so important that we get this right, so that people are not retraumatised or expected to provide information that they quite often do not have and cannot provide. In my constituency of Chichester there were four passengers on the Empire Windrush—that we know of—Roger, who was a student; Violet, a domestic worker; Samuel, a member of the Royal Navy; and we, too, had a Winston, an accountant. Their stories and experiences will no doubt have varied, but Chichester was undoubtedly enriched by their presence, no matter how long they stayed with us. Winston’s daughter was the late Andrea Levy, who represented so many of that generation in her writing about the lived experiences of Jamaicans who moved to the UK. In my constituency we have seen extraordinary performances at Chichester festival theatre, often featuring and written by black actors. I refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a trustee of Chichester festival theatre. Our city is not very multicultural—I think we are 96.8% white—so we have been on a real journey, as a theatre, to make sure that when people come to provide incredible shows, they feel welcome while staying in our city. I know that the theatre has done a lot of work to make sure that those experiences are the best they can be. Our local students in Chichester have benefited from the work of Hakim Adi, the first African-British historian to become a professor of history in the UK, who taught at the University of Chichester. Meanwhile, locals and tourists can learn much about the involvement in Britain of those who came here during the Roman empire when they visit our remarkable Fishbourne Roman palace. In Chichester, and throughout the country, we owe our black communities so much, yet at times we have let them down badly. The scandal that led to people being wrongly detained and deported due to a lack of documentation was a shameful chapter in our history. They were invited here as British citizens, yet their dignity and rights were disregarded because of failings in the state apparatus. The previous Conservative Government failed to deliver the justice that those Windrush victims deeply deserve. There was dither and delay in the implementation of the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review, and the independent Windrush commissioner has recently emphasised that the Windrush compensation scheme is not fit for purpose, as the hon. Member for Brent East mentioned. Claimants often find the process of applying for compensation exhausting and painful. Many receive no payment at the end of a lengthy and difficult process. Currently, six in 10 applications result in no compensation being awarded. The Liberal Democrats would urgently implement all the recommendations of the lessons learned review in full and make the compensation scheme independent of the Home Office. Beyond the scandal, far too many people’s lives are still blighted by prejudice, discrimination and inequality. We all have a responsibility to recognise that reality, and the role that we can play in challenging those injustices. That is even more important in this Chamber because of the unequal experiences of people from ethnic minority backgrounds across our public services. Whether it is in the criminal justice system, the NHS or education, outcomes and opportunities are not equal, and it should be the ambition of us all to change that. It is particularly important in parts of the country that are not as diverse as others. As I said, my constituency of Chichester is proportionately less diverse than others. Having said that, growing numbers of individuals from different ethnicities are moving into my city. It is important that we commit to ensuring that this is not used as a political football to stoke division or hate. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are committed to fighting for racial equality, which means unequivocally condemning racism in all its forms and tackling injustice wherever we see it. In our election manifesto, we committed to implementing a comprehensive race equality strategy aimed at reducing the disproportionately high maternal mortality rates experienced by black women and eliminating racial disparities in maternal health through a cross-departmental target and strategy. We also want to end the disproportionate use of stop and search and require all police forces to adopt ambitious targets for improving the diversity of their workforce throughout the country. We have also called for the reversal of the Conservatives’ voter ID scheme, which disproportionately excludes minorities from democracy, and for all parties to publish candidate diversity data. As has been outlined today in the outstanding contributions, the Windrush generation, and our Caribbean and black communities more broadly, have given so much to this country. I would particularly like to put on record a tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Floella Benjamin. Her story, her upbringing, her work and her continued advocacy on behalf of the Windrush generation—those invited here to help rebuild Britain—are truly inspiring. She continues to hold the Government to account in the other place to ensure that people just like her, who came here from the Caribbean in the 20th century, receive the justice they deserve. I believe that she first proposed the idea of a national Windrush Day, so I pay tribute to her. I put on record our thanks to the Windrush generation for their incredible contribution to our society over the past 80 years.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 7 would require the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament a strategy for victim-led case management in relation to criminal court proceedings. The Government have highlighted the challenges that victims face in their briefings on the Bill’s provisions in both the media and the Chamber. As we all know, it is victims who have been affected by the horrendous backlogs that we see today, and I have no doubt that the unacceptable delays will have caused victims of crime to step away or choose not to pursue the criminal justice route at all.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  First, I want to set out that the Liberal Democrats are supportive of the Hillsborough law. We have only ever sought to strengthen the legislation, not to undermine it, and we will be supporting the carry-over motion this evening. But it is frustrating for everyone involved that we have reached this stage of having to carry over the Bill, because this is landmark legislation that will transform the relationship between public bodies and the victims of horrendous tragedies, and, as the Minister said, we hope it will restore some of trust in the state among people across the UK that they will not be the victims of cover-ups after tragedies. A duty of candour provides a basic but essential level of transparency and fairness, and a duty for public officials to act with openness when dealing with public investigations—vital steps that are supported by the Liberal Democrats and Members from across the House. I commend in particular the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has been campaigning for years, as well as other hon. Members in the Chamber this evening. This Government and this Prime Minister rightly committed to the full implementation of the legislation in the Labour manifesto, yet we find ourselves here today because broken promises, quiet media briefings and a lack of transparency have totally mired the process and the progress of the Bill. Report and Third Reading were scheduled for 19 January, but the unacceptable carve-out for the security services brought that process to a halt. It is essential that the legislation includes clear, binding provisions to ensure that the security services are subject to the duty of candour. That is what the campaigners from Hillsborough Law Now expect, it is what the families of the many victims whose lives have been upended by tragedies and scandals expect, and it is what the Government promised. The campaigners and Liberal Democrat Members will not tolerate or accept backsliding, but we are still in the dark. Yes, there have been media reports of a compromise with the security services, but we are yet to see either those amendments on the amendment paper or whether they are acceptable to the campaigners who have fought so tirelessly for the legislation. The reports also contained details of additional inclusions within the scope of the Bill, including counter-terrorism police, the National Crime Agency and national intelligence. Again, this House has yet to debate the merits of those proposed inclusions, and has only heard about them in the media. Any outcome must be acceptable to the families. They have worked tirelessly, for too long, to see a half measure come to fruition. It is clear that the Government will not proceed without them onside anyway, so I encourage the Government, who I know are as keen to get this over the line as any of us, to come to a swift resolution. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) said, I hope that the legislation returns to the House shortly after the King’s Speech, because we will be in the summer recess before we know it, then it will be the conference recess. The families have waited far too long for the legislation. They cannot afford to be approaching another Christmas without seeing the Bill finally enacted. We all owe it to all the countless victims of Hillsborough, the Post Office scandal, infected blood, Grenfell, nuclear weapons testing, pelvic mesh, LGBT veterans and the many other scandals to finally get this done.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I had the opportunity to test out my hand-eye co-ordination recently by joining Chichester Centurions hockey club. We have a thriving hockey community in Chichester, and Chichester hockey club has more than 650 members. They are at risk, however, of losing their pitch provision because the pitches are coming to end of life and are being replaced with 3G pitches, which are far more favourable to football—hockey cannot be played on them. Will the Leader of the House please talk to the Sport Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and ask what she can do, because the picture in my area is happening nationally? Will he please ask her to meet me, so that she can tell me what she will do to protect hockey?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 14 would require the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. It would necessitate a report being laid by the Government on the impact of repealing the presumption of parental responsibility. We are in favour of clause 17, but the amendment focuses on the impact of the provisions on legal aid and the capacity of family courts, judicial training and investment in the family court estate. Repealing the presumption of parental responsibility will lead to a need for more legal advice, as well as changes in hearings and court practices. It is important that the Government report on those changes to the House. We hope that they accept the need for a report. Clause 17 will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The presumption was originally introduced to ensure that both parents could maintain a relationship with their children after separation. However, there have been long-standing campaigns to repeal the presumption, with evidence emerging—I say emerging, but it is long-standing evidence—that children could be left at risk of harm. The change will mean that the courts will no longer start from the assumption that parental involvement is always in the child’s best interests. A key campaigner for this change, working with Women’s Aid, is Claire Throssell, who the Committee had the opportunity to hear from during the evidence session. Claire’s children, Jack and Paul, were killed by their father, who locked them in the attic and set fire to the house. If there was any moment that we all will remember for a very long time, it was Claire holding the images of her children before the incident and afterwards. I commend her for her bravery and for the way that she was able to speak so clearly not just for herself, but for all the families who have experienced devastating bereavement in that way—fighting for the children who will come after. A family court judge, guided by the presumption, decided to allow Claire’s ex-husband unsupervised access to their children, despite evidence that he had threatened to harm both her and them. Since Women’s Aid first reported on the issue in 2004, 67 children have been killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse through contact arrangements, with 19 further child deaths documented in the decade to September 2024 alone. The Lib Dems are in favour of the shift in law away from the presumption of parental involvement. Although the Bill seeks to repeal the presumption, there is a pro-contact culture in the family courts, as described by Farah Nazeer of Women’s Aid, who we also heard from in the evidence session. Will the Minister lay out what will be done to support the cultural reform of the family courts to ensure that this is a pivotal moment for victims of domestic abuse, who for so long have had their concerns around their children’s safety dismissed? Claire spoke to that point in the evidence session. When I asked her what she believed the next steps should be, she said: “What I would like to see moving forward is an understanding of what it looks like without presumption of contact; what good practice looks like; understanding trauma; understanding what coercive control is; understanding emotional abuse. We all understand physical abuse—it is there; we see it. What we do not understand is the emotional abuse and the scars that we carry. We must always look from the position of actually seeing a child, hearing a child, believing a child, protecting a child, and we must go from this basis.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 58, Q110.] New clause 16, which I also tabled, is a probing amendment that I will not press to a vote, but I wish to discuss it further. It would introduce a rebuttal presumption that a parent’s relocation with a child in the context of domestic abuse, undertaken in reliance on and with documented advice from authorities or support services, is reasonable and in the child’s best interests, unless the contrary is known. New clause 16 would allow a parent to relocate with a child if they have evidence or advice from a domestic abuse support service or authority. It would require the court to assume that the move is reasonable and place the burden on the other parent to prove that the move is not in the child’s best interest. The new clause is aimed at making it easier for victims of domestic abuse to leave their situations safely, and to prevent them from being forced to remain near their abusive ex-partners. Currently, the legal framework does not adequately distinguish between a parent who removes a child to protect them and a parent who removes a child to punish the other party. Our new clause would not remove safeguards in respect of alienation, but would instead shift the dial towards believing and protecting victims of domestic abuse. The new clause is supported by Fair Hearing, which shared multiple examples of its work with courts that failed to give proper weight to the relevance of domestic abuse in relocation decisions. In one such case, a mother who had experienced severe physical, sexual and psychological abuse had been forced by her partner, during the relationship, to move with their children to an isolated rural area. After leaving him, she sought permission to return to her home town, where she had family support and greater safety. The court none the less required her to remain in an isolated cottage near her abuser, failing to give proper weight to the impact of the abuse, or to her need for safety and support. Cases of that kind illustrate the consequences of a framework that, in its operation, too often treats a survivor seeking to relocate for safety no differently from any other parent seeking to move for lifestyle or preference reasons. I make the point to the Minister that this could happen to any of us. So often, abuse does not start on day one, when the partner suggests that we move somewhere lovely and will be really happy there. I am a very long way removed from the version of myself who made the decision to follow a boy three hours away from my family in my early 20s. He turned out not to be the great guy I thought he was when I made that decision. I escaped from that situation, but had I stayed and ended up having children, the idea that I would have been trapped in a city that was not mine, away from my family, who were my support network, is too scary to bear. I remind the Minister that it could happen to literally any one of us. Wider campaigns from Women’s Aid, SafeLives and Refuge have focused on ensuring that survivors can relocate to escape abuse. As subsection 2 of the new clause outlines: “Where the relocating parent demonstrates that the decision to relocate was made in consequence of domestic abuse, and this is supported by documented advice from a relevant authority or support service, there is a presumption that the relocation was reasonable and in the best interests of the child.” Under the new clause, the documented advice would include evidence from a police force, social services, a multi-agency risk assessment conference or an independent domestic violence adviser. We look to work closely with the Government on this issue, and I hope they recognise the need to go further, but I will not push new clause 16 to a vote. I will speak briefly to new clause 20, also tabled in my name, which would introduce a statutory presumption that where domestic abuse is alleged, the court must make findings on the allegations before considering any claim that a parent has sought to undermine the child’s relationship with the other party. If one parent alleges domestic abuse and the other alleges alienating behaviour—that is, influencing the child against them—the court must decide the domestic abuse allegations first. The court cannot move on to contact issues until that is decided. If the court finds domestic abuse, a child’s reluctance to see that parent is presumed to be justified. That presumption can be overturned only with evidence. If abuse is proven, courts cannot consider claims of alienation until the alleged abusive parent proves the child’s resistance is not due to abuse. Campaigners have long argued that the family courts have been used by abusers to retraumatise victims and have over-prioritised contact between parents and children. It is estimated that around 60% to 90% of child arrangement cases in the family court feature allegations of domestic abuse. In 2020, the report entitled “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases” highlighted serious issues with how the family court system addresses domestic abuse in child arrangement cases. It said that those issues were underpinned by a pro-contact culture, silo working, an adversarial system and resource constraints. A 2023 report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner stated: “Victims and survivors and their advisors reported concerns that raising domestic abuse as an issue often risked the retaliatory use of so-called ‘parental’ alienation narratives by parties against whom domestic abuse had been alleged as a counter-claim, leading to worse outcomes for adult and child victims and survivors.” Five years on from the harm report, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that despite overwhelming evidence of domestic abuse in most cases, a pro-contact culture and a failure to recognise abuse still contribute to decisions that may put children in harm’s way. This can be considered a probing amendment; I will not press new clause 20 to a vote. We will be looking to work closely with the Government to make progress in this area. The new clause would tilt the dial slightly towards victims of domestic abuse by ensuring that courts properly examined cases before considering issues of alienation. It would prioritise the safety of victims of domestic abuse, whether partners or children, by requiring these allegations to be addressed first. It is also sometimes argued that children resist contact with certain parents because of manipulation. Our proposal would ensure that courts did not assume that manipulation first, but it would also have safeguards. It would not allow domestic abuse organisations to submit evidence; instead, it would be the authorities, social services and an independent domestic violence adviser who would do that. A minimum evidential threshold would also have to be met.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I seek clarification from the Minister about the reference in clause 14 to “representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations”. Earlier, the hon. Member for Reigate raised the practice of live tweeting from court proceedings. I would appreciate it if the Minister set out her understanding of who would come under “a representative of a news gathering or reporting organisation”. With the rise of social media, and with more people getting their news online on things like X, we can have lots of news organisations with self-professed journalists or online commentators who are acting in the interests of providing online journalism, but who do not hold any form of accreditation or any official role as a journalist. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain who legitimate members of the press will be under this measure. Will they have to be recognised journalists? Will they have to have a press pass? Or can they say, “I’m here, in the interest of journalism, to live tweet the events because I am a self-employed journalist”?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you all for being here; I am very grateful to you for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Farah, you mentioned the presumption against parental responsibility. I agree that that is a really important step that the Labour Government are taking, but the rest of the family court process is currently out of this Bill’s scope. Could anything fundamental be introduced into this Bill to make the experience better for victims, who often go down a twin-track approach through the criminal courts and family courts? Farah Nazeer: Thank you for the question. There are a few things around presumption that could make a big difference. One is training for the entirety of the court staff, because the stories that we hear and the experiences that we support women and children through are frankly appalling. The staff are not trauma-informed and there is no understanding of what a victim is going through. The courts are weaponised and survivors are brought back to the courts repeatedly. It is an appalling process. No policy area that you work on at Women’s Aid is a picnic, but this is the worst. People describe the trauma that they go through in the family courts as worse than the trauma that they endured through the abuse that they experienced. One thing is for the court system to understand domestic abuse, understand sexual violence, understand coercive control and be trauma-informed. That means having processes in which a survivor knows what is happening, understands what the next steps are and is supported through the system, and having separate places where a survivor can be. Some of it is quite basic, but it is really important to improving the survivor experience. Another thing is the regulation of experts. We often have unregulated experts coming into the family courts to provide expertise and advice to the judge on what is happening in a relationship. You would not have unregulated experts in any safeguarding context; it is absolutely wild that you would have that. One thing we really want to see is regulated experts: psychiatrists and psychologists who are regulated by the appropriate body, rather than, seemingly, people who are just not. The last thing that I want to focus on is the concept of parental alienation, which is often invoked in family courts. It is a concept that is not evidenced and is not recognised in psychiatric or medical practice, but it is often invoked as a concept to defend against claims of domestic abuse. What needs to happen is a child’s safety being put at the heart of the decision by a regulated expert, by a trained judge. If you get that right, you immediately improve the experience for survivors and children, and you improve the safeguarding around survivors and children. Those three things are absolutely critical to changing the culture and the experience and to ensuring safety.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you. The victims in the previous session spoke about a necessary change in culture in the criminal system, which I think is a shared view across all the parties represented today. Can either of you see anything in the legislation before us that will provide that change in culture? Kirsty Brimelow: I am going to hand over to Riel on this. We support much of the reform from clause 8 onwards, on which I will hand over to her. We are all absolutely there to make improvements; no system is perfect, and the criminal justice system absolutely is not. We are there ready to support the reforms, and we are very experienced in bringing in reforms. Some of the issues I heard spoken of this morning included clearly terrible communication issues, where people were not informed as to what was going on, and they should be fairly easy to sort out. Also, we very much support the idea that there is a lawyer advising complainants, which is another proposal that has been put forward by the Government. We support that because complainants often get wrong information from NGOs or the police—doing their best—about what might be happening, and what might happen to them in court. That, in itself, can cause them to be anxious about what might happen, and it can contribute to the attrition rate. We have always had an issue with an attrition rate in sexual offences cases, and each time we need to look at why that is, so we welcome any proposals. I will hand over to Riel.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Protecting Young People Online · Hansard source

  More

  The Online Safety Act was intended to protect children and teenagers from harmful social media content. The Molly Rose Foundation’s study found that, before the Act’s implementation, over a third of 13 to 17-year-olds had seen harmful content online, including self-harm, depression or eating disorder content. Young people in my constituency tell me that they still see this content, so will the Minister commit to publish a report examining whether the Online Safety Act is meeting its stated aim of keeping children safe online, while we wait for the Government’s response to their own consultation?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Protecting Young People Online · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to help reduce social media harms for children under 16.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I say this not just as a constituency MP with correspondence from hundreds of parents in my inbox, but as a mum: a review, however short, kicks the can down the road, even though we have the legislative vehicle for change in the other place right now. Will the Secretary of State please talk to our Lords counterparts and ask them to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which takes a harms-based approach?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes · Hansard source

  More

  If Ofcom does not act decisively and swiftly to protect people in the UK, it risks sending a deeply damaging signal that even the most serious forms of online abuse will be accepted when they are carried out by powerful platforms that are owned by powerful men. Does the Secretary of State have full faith that Ofcom will enforce the Online Safety Act in light of this slow and inadequate response to child sexual abuse material being produced by Grok?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Creative Education · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that a creative arts education opens up multiple opportunities and careers for young people that do not necessarily involve being on a stage or creating music? The creative industries need intelligent engineers to make the lights and sound work, so a creative education can open many doors to exciting careers in the creative industries.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister recognise that, while we are talking about the struggles local media outlets are facing—and that huge drop in revenue over 15 years—taking away £32 million by removing the opportunity for them to carry advertisements for licence changes could have a huge impact?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister makes a very valid point about businesses diversifying and utilising the new online space. I have V2 Radio in my patch, which is a relatively new radio station, but in order to attract people to its radio station, it also puts its news on social media and has a really active website. It also plays a huge role with the voluntary sector in large campaigns that spread across the constituency. It does a Christmas appeal every year and a “Beds for Kids” campaign earlier this year, getting beds for young people who do not have them. Does the shadow Minister agree that the companies that are diversifying and making sure that their news gets to everybody who wants it are more likely to succeed in this complicated framework that we now live in?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog. Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year. While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Access to Arts and Culture · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for performing arts education and training— I said that as quickly as I could! The music and dance scheme funds exceptional schools that train the next generation of artists who will go on to lead the industry, both on and off the stage. Those schools nurture talent regardless of wealth, and are the very definition of social mobility, but some are now at risk of closure because the fund is not guaranteed beyond next year. Will the Minister guarantee secure, ringfenced funding so that those vital institutions can continue to increase access to an industry that has been identified as a leading area of growth?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank her for her impassioned speech, and for shining a light on a broken system since 1997. Today is her day, as much as it is the day for all those campaigning for change. On 15 April 1989, fans of Liverpool football club undertook what everyone assumed would be a routine pilgrimage to watch their team play Nottingham Forest in the FA cup semi-final; it would be anything but that. As everyone will know, that match at Hillsborough stadium was to descend into carnage and commotion, causing a mass crush in the fenced sections housing Liverpool supporters. It led to 97 fatalities and hundreds of injuries, as well as immeasurable trauma for the families and friends of the victims, and left a dark mark on our nation’s history. The Hillsborough disaster is now talked about in schools, but it is not just a moment consigned to our history books; it has served as a catalyst for change, which we finally see brought here today. Immediately after the disaster, questions were asked about how and why such a tragedy could occur, and immediately the path to truth was blocked by people in positions of power and trust. It is abundantly clear now that a system was in place that allowed the narrative to be filled with lies, aimed at protecting the public bodies who bore responsibility for the safety of those fans attending the match. In the days and weeks that followed, blame was pinned on the Liverpool fans—the victims—by sections of the media. Stories were fed to journalists by those who were ultimately found responsible for the disaster, which undermined inquiries into the events. The false allegations of drunkenness and hooliganism painted a dark stain over the victims and their families, which hindered their attempts to grieve and seek justice, and prevented any meaningful learning from the tragedy for many years. Conditions on the public bodies and in the justice system provided the perfect environment for a co-ordinated cover-up, designed to absolve South Yorkshire police of blame and all them to protect their own. Their actions led to decades of delayed justice. Families were denied the truth, and individuals whose failures had caused the tragedy remained in power. The tireless and heroic campaigning of the victims’ families and the survivors of Hillsborough has slowly uncovered the truth that the stadium’s dangerous design was well known, and that the police made catastrophic decisions on the day that cost lives, but it has been an uphill battle. Ordinary people with limited resources were forced to push back against state institutions, fighting with the odds stacked against them at every turn. I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance over 36 long years. Their efforts have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field for countless others affected by miscarriages of justice, be it the Post Office scandal, infected blood, Grenfell, nuclear weapons testing, pelvic mesh, LGBT veterans or any of the many others. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries. Those 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 reputation and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better. The Bill is long overdue, but it will finally allow basic values of fairness to be restored within our justice system. A duty of candour, providing a basic but essential level of transparency and fairness, and a duty for public officials to act with openness when dealing with public investigations, are vital steps supported by the Liberal Democrats and hon. Members across the House. The Bill also offers a crucial opportunity to push for cultural change in public organisations that are outside the legislation. It marks a shift away from defensive, inward-looking approaches that prioritise reputation over responsibility, and a move towards an open, learning culture that puts the public first and learns from mistakes, rather than concealing them. Public bodies should welcome these reforms as a means of rebuilding public trust and avoiding the drawn-out, costly legal processes that have so often characterised past scandals. The two new statutory offences—one for those who fail to fulfil the duty of candour, and the other for those who mislead the public while in office—are welcome and necessary additions. They will serve as consequential reminders for those in public office that their primary duty is to the public, and that they must go beyond self-interest. The introduction of provisions on proportionality and cost-effectiveness is a welcome step that will not only increase fairness but ensure that taxpayer money is never spent silencing victims. 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 seeking to bring these scandals into the light have faced well resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations. Ending the need for large-scale public fundraising will ensure that everyone, regardless of wealth, has an equal opportunity to be heard. However, the Liberal Democrats believe that there are gaps in the legislation. We will, of course, engage with the Government collaboratively and constructively throughout the Bill’s stages. On legal aid, we are concerned that the measures are too limited, as they support only the families of bereaved victims. Those who are seriously injured, or who, as in the Horizon scandal, have lost their livelihood and cannot afford legal challenges are not supported by the Bill, and will still face burdensome legal aid tests. There are precedents from the infected blood scandal and the Post Office scandal for extending legal aid support beyond the bereaved families. There are also instances of misconduct that should be captured in the Bill. Officials who are not actively engaged in wrongdoing, but who are turning a blind eye to it, should be held accountable. The Bill also fails to address day-to-day decision making outside formal settings. We have seen an increasing number of cases in which communications on services such as WhatsApp have gone missing prior to investigations. An example is the covid inquiry. That represents a major gap in accountability. These communications must be included in future investigations, as we are moving into a world where we use such services more frequently in working life. Many of these scandals have come to light because of the brave work of whistleblowers—individuals who have shared information at great personal risk, while standing up against entrenched power structures. The Liberal Democrats have long called for the strengthening of whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing in organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. We therefore call for the UK’s whistleblowing framework to include anonymous reporting, legal representation funding and a statutory duty on organisations to foster a speak-up culture. As in our manifesto, we call for an independent office for the whistleblower, which would be transformative in enforcing standards in whistleblowing cases. We would also like the Bill to be implemented immediately after Royal Assent. Campaigners such as those at Hillsborough Law Now have fought for years to ensure the enacting of these changes, and victims should not have to wait a moment longer for them to be introduced. Finally, we have a concern, which I think is shared across the House—it has been reflected in the opening speeches—about the lack of redress from the media. In many of the scandals that we have discussed, the amplification of falsehoods and the blaming of victims has been a recurring issue. In the case of Hillsborough, The Sun conspired with South Yorkshire police to spread the lie that the fans were responsible. Media regulation remains largely unchanged since the original Leveson inquiry, despite its recommendations. The second part of that inquiry, which would have examined the relationship between the press and the police—precisely the issue in cases like Hillsborough—was never completed. The Government call for integrity, and Labour has promised Leveson 2 in the past. Much more needs to be done to strengthen accountability, transparency and openness, including within social media companies. The Molly Rose Foundation, which campaigns on suicide prevention, has correctly pointed out that despite recent powers on disclosure targeting social media companies, those organisations have significant commercial and reputational incentives to delay and obstruct investigative proceedings. We support the calls for an amendment to the Bill that would extend the duty of candour to social media companies, so that those organisations are held to account in the same way. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed whether that was in the scope of the Bill. We are all familiar with the many failings at the heart of public institutions that have, in recent years, been brought to light by brave individuals who are prepared to speak out against organisations that should have been trustworthy. Many of those campaigners are here to see the law finally progress today. It is to their credit that the legislation will bring improvements in public standards, accountability and transparency that will spare others from suffering what they had to endure. I thank them. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill further and ensuring that it delivers for our public services and our citizens.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Prisoner Release Checks · Hansard source

  More

  We Liberal Democrats are relieved that Kebatu has been recaptured after what must have been a terrifying few days for his victims, and we echo the Justice Secretary’s remarks thanking Essex police, the Metropolitan police and British Transport police. However, Kebatu’s recapture does not excuse the serious mistakes that caused his release to happen in the first place—it is totally unacceptable that the safety of the public was ever put at risk. HMP Chelmsford is a remand prison that regularly deals with prisoners coming and going, and it should therefore be highly capable of handling situations like this. Yet we know from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons that there are deep-seated inadequacies at Chelmsford, including inexperienced staff and a lack of adequate training, identified especially in pre-release documents. At the same time, we have seen worrying trends nationally in mistaken prisoner releases, with 262 prisoners released by accident in 2025, up from 115 the previous year. We Liberal Democrats recognise that the Government inherited a mess when it comes to prisons, but they should have taken serious steps to address the shortfalls and staffing issues in prisons, which are now clearly putting the public at risk. What steps are the Secretary of State’s Government taking to address work culture and training issues in our prisons, especially prisons such as HMP Chelmsford where concerns had already been raised? I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an independent investigation, following repeated calls by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), whose constituents were put at risk, but will he confirm what consequences those found at fault will face? Also, pending the outcome of the investigation, does he agree that anyone responsible should face the sack? Does he believe that the new safeguards he is putting in place will prevent this from ever happening again? Finally, Kebatu’s victims will have spent the weekend incredibly distressed. What support was provided to those victims and their families over the weekend when they were aware of the perpetrator being at large, and will that support continue?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to reflect the importance of coastal communities in driving the Government’s growth agenda. My constituency has the coastal community of Bracklesham, a small village where the Beach Café, Rewild Sauna and GOAT Coffee are doing incredible things in all coming together to bring so much more tourism to what is a beautiful part of my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a quid pro quo with businesses that are trying to drive growth, but are being hamstrung by the Government’s increased taxes and business rates?