Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. “For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!” Those are the appalling words of Israeli Minister of National Security Ben-Gvir, posted three days ago. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister will stand up and condemn this genocidal and, frankly, psychopathic language. Considering the very fragile ceasefire with Lebanon, does the Deputy Prime Minister see any version of lasting peace in the middle east with Ben-Gvir continuing to serve in Netanyahu’s Cabinet, and are further sanctions on him possible?

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

  More

  The Minister talks about the practice of floating trials or over-listing, which we know is so harrowing for victims, who get themselves ready for a case only for it to not go ahead. Quite often they are not told that they have a floating case or that their case has been listed; they are just told that their case has been adjourned and that they will be provided with a new date. If we look at the data for the number of cases that fell at the last hurdle in 2024, we see that there were 444 where the prosecution advocate failed to attend; 314 where the defence advocate failed to attend; 209 where the prosecution advocate engaged in another trial; and 186 linked to prison transport delays, although I would argue that that number is much higher because of the way they are recorded. How does the Minister square the circle of trying to speed up the process while asking the judiciary not to over-list, which could cause the number of courts that are sitting empty each day to go up, because when a case falls that Crown court will then be empty?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am just trying to get some clarification about when a jury trial “has started”. If a jury trial is listed on a day but the case is adjourned, it does not go ahead. Cases can be adjourned for many different reasons—the defence or the prosecution could not be ready. In that instance, where the case is adjourned to be relisted on a different day, would the defendant maintain their right to a jury trial or could it be reallocated to the bench division?

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

  More

  Q Thank you for being here. Your police officers are at the coalface. They often experience these adjournments and see victims let down at the final hurdle when they are about to have their day in court. What is your assessment of why cases are so often adjourned in our Crown courts? Chief Constable Hatchett: I think there are multiple reasons. There are people who are far better qualified to give you evidence on that; undoubtedly you will have spoken to defence lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service, who can probably give you some really good evidence. There are a whole host of reasons why cases are adjourned. Sometimes it is evidence, sometimes it is witnesses and victims, sometimes it is disclosure, sometimes it is court time—the reasons are multiple, but ultimately victims and witnesses are suffering as a consequence. My witness care units then have to pick up the conversations with those victims and witnesses to prepare them, hoping to keep them on board and confident enough in the criminal justice system to give evidence at a future date.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats will be voting against the Bill, and we have tabled a reasoned amendment that sets out why we fundamentally disagree with the approach of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts Minister to tackling the Crown court backlog. Our views have been well aired in this place over the last few months, but today is an opportunity for us to lay out the reasons why the Bill should not progress in its current form. Something that we agree on is that the current backlog is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. We agree with the Government that that is because of the historic and monumental failings of the previous Conservative Government, whose complacency and mismanagement of the justice system left the criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. It is a shameful legacy. The backlog in our criminal courts now stands at 80,000. That disgraceful situation deprives victims and defendants of justice for years—cases are now being listed for the end of this decade. This has a huge impact on the quality of evidence, and it even causes victims to pull out of cases because so long has passed since the crime and they just want to move on with their lives. It also leaves defendants’ lives on pause while they await the opportunity to prove their innocence. The system as it stands fails everyone. Something must be done about this crisis, and it must be done now. Sir Brian Leveson was clear in his report that the fundamental drivers of the ever-increasing backlog were systematic underfunding, the readiness of defence and prosecution teams, and the availability of witnesses, victims and defendants, but he did not identify juries as the cause of the problem. Between 2016 and 2024, the number of ineffective trials increased from 15% to 25%. In that time, the average court sitting time fell from 3.8 hours per sitting day to 3.2 hours. Juries are not the problem; inefficiencies are. In my Crown court in Chichester, all cases were suspended for a fortnight in January because the heating system failed and it was too cold in the building. Across the country, there are stories of courts closing due to crumbling roofs, water pouring into courtrooms, gas leaks and general poor maintenance over many years. Juries are not the problem; crumbling infrastructure is.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  We must not conflate the appalling actions of Iran with those of the Iranian people, who have spent years fighting at great risk for change—and intensively over the last couple of months. The severe repression under the ayatollah has led many of them to actually welcome the actions of Trump and Netanyahu, but how are this Government going to ensure that Iranian voices are heard when decisions are being made about their future once military action finally subsides?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Liz was thrown out of the military for being gay and has since received redress for this injustice via the LGBT financial recognition scheme. Liz told me that she has never attended any veteran support group because her discharge from the military left her feeling unworthy of the title of veteran. What steps is the Department taking to encourage those veterans to engage with support schemes like the brilliant female veterans scheme running at Tuppenny Barn in Southbourne in my constituency to rebuild trust after the grave injustice that they experienced?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps he is taking to ensure that veterans receive adequate support after leaving the armed forces.

• 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?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right to acknowledge not just the veterans, but those who have loved them. Today my son had the privilege of reading at our local cenotaph the names of those who were killed in world war two as well as the name of my best friend, who was a Royal Marine and died in 2012 in Afghanistan. It was an incredibly proud moment for me that my son got to read his name and remember the sacrifice that those who have loved and lost make for us to live our lives, so I thank the Minister for acknowledging those who have loved and lost.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace · Hansard source

  More

  I put on record my respect for the bravery of the Ukrainian children Vladyslav, Valeriia and Roman who came to Parliament last night to share their stories as survivors of Putin’s war of aggression. Putin’s action over Polish airspace last night was a deliberate move to test NATO’s reaction, and the response must match the moment. Will the Minister please push for a cohesive plan to seize frozen Russian assets and funnel them to the humanitarian mission to support Ukraine’s incredible and inspiring future generation?

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important debate to Westminster Hall. I begin by thanking all colleagues present; I am happy to take interventions. I also thank those joining us in the Gallery, especially my constituent Liz, whose story first alerted me to this issue. In preparing for today’s debate, I have been deeply moved by the countless personal stories that I have heard: stories of lives devastated, careers destroyed, and justice long denied. For context, before 2000, LGBT individuals were banned from serving in the UK armed forces. It is estimated that around 20,000 service personnel were dismissed or forced out under that discriminatory policy. The independent review, led with dignity and compassion by the late Lord Etherton and commissioned in 2023, was a welcome step, but let us be honest: it came far too late, 23 years after the ban was lifted, with many veterans not living to see an apology or their berets and medals returned. Lord Etherton’s review exposed the systematic mistreatment of LGBT service personnel on the Ministry of Defence’s watch. The findings were harrowing. Veterans were subjected to deeply invasive and degrading investigations based solely on suspicions of homosexual activity. Investigations often lasted months, yet individuals were sometimes given only a week’s notice before being dismissed. Interrogations were intensely personal and accusatory in nature. Physical examinations were also conducted, including internal procedures on both men and women in a misguided attempt to prove same-sex sexual activity. People were sent to psychiatrists, where so-called conversion therapy was suggested as a means to remain in service. These practices included electro-convulsive treatments and the use of drugs—treatments that were cruel, dehumanising and wholly indefensible.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent reflects that of many others who feel abandoned and ignored. The MOD committed to updating applicants to the scheme within 18 weeks of their application, but that has not happened and has further deepened the emotional distress by reopening old wounds, as my hon. Friend said. I am very pleased, as I said before, that my constituent Liz is in the Public Gallery. Liz’s story mirrors that of so many affected by the policy. She was discharged from the RAF in 1969 after private letters between her and her girlfriend at the time were discovered. When her girlfriend failed to meet her one evening, Liz learned that she had been arrested by military police. Liz was then coerced into providing a statement, which led directly to her dismissal. She only discovered decades later when applying for this scheme that she had also been given a criminal conviction for same-sex sexual activity. That conviction has followed her unknowingly for her entire adult life and may have affected numerous aspects of it without her knowledge. Liz is one of the few who has received her compensation, which was fast-tracked due to health concerns. I am pleased to learn that both the dismissed and discharged scheme and the impact scheme are prioritising veterans over 80 and those with serious health conditions, but that will represent a large cohort. I move on to my questions for the Minister. According to Fighting With Pride, 84 payments have been made out of a total of more than 1,200 applications since the scheme went live in December. I had to get that information from Fighting With Pride because the MOD does not publish the number of successful applications on a rolling basis, which fuels mistrust. Will the Government confirm today how many veterans have received compensation in the dismissed or discharged scheme and the impact scheme, and what percentage of claimants that represents? Will the Minister commit to a simple weekly update? Even a tweet—is it still called a tweet?—would go a long way in rebuilding faith in the process. The DD scheme is currently managed by a very small number of civil servants. That scheme is for the larger sum of £50,000, and it deals with the simple question of whether the veteran was dismissed or discharged for their sexuality or perceived sexuality. Will the Minister increase the capacity to come to a decision on cases by increasing the number of civil servants working on the DD scheme so that it does not take the predicted five years to clear all the cases? I recognise that the impact scheme, which requires a decision by a panel chaired by Lord Paddick, deals with a far more complex area of impact payments that can be awarded up to the value of £20,000. The panel is sometimes presented with up to 600 pages of records for one veteran, and therefore the preparation time needed before a panel is extensive. The panel attempts to hear 10 cases per sitting, up from six at the start of the process. Will the Minister please give serious consideration to appointing a secondary panel with a secondary chair, as the most sitting days that the current panel can manage is two a week, with two days for preparation and reading? Now that the internal IT problems have apparently been resolved, will all veterans who have applied for either scheme be provided with an update 18 weeks after their application and every 18 weeks subsequently until a decision is reached, as the MOD previously promised? Will the information that will apparently be available on the portal be accessible to all, even those who are not tech savvy? Will the Government take the steps outlined to streamline the process of compensation, ensuring that the collection of military records is front-loaded when applications are received so that there is no delay in the claim being processed? Is the £75 million for reparations a ringfenced fund that will be extended if the number of applicants exceeds the fund? If so, where will the additional funding come from? I thank everyone who got in touch ahead of today’s debate, including Fighting With Pride, the Minister and all Members who came to share their constituents’ stories and show support for speeding up the scheme. We need to do better to ensure this dark period in our history has an ending that recognises the magnitude of the injustice faced by so many veterans. There is not a moment to lose.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an important point. There are constituents in every one of our constituencies who were wronged, and I am grateful to her for raising the plight of her constituents in this regard. She is right that we cannot wait any longer for justice to be served. I pay tribute to those individuals who will never see justice served; they will not see a penny of reparation or an apology from the state for their cruel treatment. They deserved better. The Etherton report is remarkable in its scope and sensitivity. The Government accepted all its recommendations, and the apologies that followed, the plans for memorials, and the returning of medals and caps would not have been possible without it. Today, we must focus on one of the most critical elements for veterans: financial reparations. Last December, the Government announced a £75 million compensation fund, with individual payments of up to £70,000 for LGBT veterans who were affected by the ban. The announcement was welcomed across the House as an acknowledgment, at last, of the scale of harm inflicted. However, I secured this debate because the implementation of the scheme has been woefully inadequate. The delivery has been painfully slow, and the communication from the Ministry of Defence has been appalling. That is not justice delivered. It is justice delayed, and as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to reflect on the fact that the policy that has been put in place means justice for those veterans. Today I will speak about the speed at which we actually see justice served for veterans who suffered wholly indefensible treatment. Nobody decides to go into the military lightly. It is a commitment to their country. As a result of the policy, many veterans lost not only their careers and pensions, but their medals, their reputations and in some cases they acquired criminal records without even being informed. Many had never disclosed their sexuality to friends or family and were then put in an impossible position of keeping the reason for their dismissal a secret, or having to share their sexuality. The consequences were profound. Veterans were left feeling humiliated and hounded out of service. Highly successful careers ended prematurely. Many found themselves suddenly without direction, with no time to prepare for civilian life. Many struggled to find new work. Some became homeless. Their future plans were torn to shreds, and they were left to rebuild their lives. The personal cost of that trauma is immeasurable: families were torn apart, livelihoods were destroyed and relationships were ruined.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention. He is absolutely right. I will come on to the fact that the scheme prioritises those who are over the age of 80 or have terminal diagnoses. That needs to be communicated to them so that they understand where their application is in the process. Some of these veterans, like the hon. Member’s constituent, have been waiting for 25 years since the ban was lifted. In some cases, they have been waiting up to 60 years for any form of recognition or redress. The charity Fighting With Pride estimates that, at the current rate, it could take five years to clear the existing backlog. That is wholly unacceptable, particularly given the age and health of many applicants. Time is not a luxury they can afford. From the accounts I have received from veterans, the process is riddled with obstacles. Many of them have received the non-financial reparations, such as returned medals, regimental caps or letters from the Prime Minister, only to be told that they must provide additional documentation, such as military records, to claim the financial compensation. I am fully aware that someone who applies for the non-financial reparations may choose not to subsequently apply for the financial reparations or may not qualify, but surely that process can be streamlined. We could frontload it: when someone applies for the non-financial redress, their military records could be requested in anticipation of a possible financial reparation. That would ease the burden on applicants and speed up the overall process. The Ministry’s communication has been woeful. Applicants were told to expect an update within 18 weeks. When those updates failed to materialise, many were left anxious and in the dark, fearing that their applications had been lost or rejected. For the hundreds of veterans who have waited years—decades—for justice, these delays are retraumatising. They are being forced to relive some of the most painful chapters of their lives, only to be met with silence from the very institution that wronged them.