Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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