Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Home Office and Ministry of Justice · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in today’s estimates day debate on criminal justice, and I put on the record my thanks to the three Chairs of the Select Committees that suggested this debate to the Backbench Business Committee: the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown); the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley); and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). I also thank all hon. Members who have stuck it out in the Chamber on a Monday evening, who clearly care about criminal justice. Politics is all about priorities, and so often the justice system falls a little short. Unless members of the public have had experience of the criminal justice system, have been victims of crime or have a loved one who has had the experience of going through the system, it does not necessarily appear in their top five priorities for the Government, but I thank all those who work to keep the criminal justice system functioning despite the lack of investment, the often crumbling infrastructure and the huge amount of pressure on them to ensure that justice is served. The system as it stands lets down victims and defendants alike. It fails to rehabilitate offenders, and so many never see the justice that they deserve. The Crown court backlog is clearly unacceptably high, and that opinion is shared across the House. It is the biggest challenge that the justice system faces, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said in his contribution. Its exponential growth requires urgent action, but the fix does not lie in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials. Jury trials provide a fundamental safeguard of fairness and liberty, and they are not the cause of the backlog. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not fundamentally believe that the Government have successfully made the case that their reforms will reduce the backlog or make any cost saving to the Department. The modelling has still not been made available, and the estimates behind the claimed time savings have been widely questioned. Even accepting the Government’s own estimates, it will take a decade for the backlog to fall below current levels. Indeed, the backlog is currently predicted to continue increasing and to surpass 100,000 cases by the end of next year. What has been proven to reduce the backlog across the country is the very welcome uncapping of sitting days, and we are pleased that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has been allocated a £143.1 million uplift, including the funding for uncapped sitting days. With the previous increases in sitting days that the Government announced in the last round, Crown court backlogs are beginning to fall. The Old Bailey reduced its backlog in 2025. In Chelmsford, it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction in its backlog. Across the country, the overall Crown court backlog in the last quarter fell for the first time in three years. So the truth is that proper funding for our courts and open sitting days are bringing down the backlog, and we are yet to see the result of the full uncapping of sitting days, which came into place only in April. Given the scepticism that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has expressed about jury trial reform, I hope the Government will give serious consideration to changing course. He told BBC Radio Manchester that the Government should “pause…this and take a step back and have proper consideration”, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) mentioned. On another area of the criminal justice system, we Liberal Democrats have put forward several amendments, such as training for court staff, so that the victim experience is better, because victims often report feeling unsupported or unheard. The Government must do more to continue their journey to ensure that the court system centres victims’ experience. Part of that experience is the processing after a criminal case, and access to court transcripts for victims. I acknowledge that the Government have made steps to improve access, after robust negotiations in both Houses on various Bills since July 2024, most recently the Sentencing Act 2026 and the Victims and Courts Act 2026. I put on record the exemplary effort made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has been campaigning to ensure that court transcripts are made available for free to victims of crime, after a constituent of hers was quoted thousands of pounds to access the transcript of her own court case. Nobody should be priced out of seeing their own story in black and white after they have gone through a Crown court experience. Charlotte Meijer and the campaign Open Justice for All have been campaigning incredibly on this issue. They have published a letter calling on the Deputy Prime Minister to go further and faster, and that includes ensuring that magistrates courts are recorded and sentencing remarks are made available for free in all courts. We are not here to discuss the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but it does not seem to be progressing currently or coming back to the House in any rush. I would be quite happy for clauses 1 to 8 to never appear again, but other clauses that do really important things—introducing recording in magistrates courts, repealing the presumption against parental responsibility—are key to strengthening our justice system and our family courts. We repeatedly hear stories of failings in infrastructure such as roofs collapsing, IT systems not working, and evidence being shared on a memory stick and being lost during a hearing. The Ministry of Justice must get a grip of this chance to change that and to improve the environment for those working in the courts and those attending them. I will briefly move on to prisons, which continue to run very hot. They are overcrowded, understaffed and increasingly unable to rehabilitate offenders. Violence is rife, with an average of 28 assaults on staff every day across the prison estate. On the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater about higher sickness levels, I think that is in large part due to the stress experienced by prison staff. We see the same in the Probation Service, which has a much higher sickness rate than other civil service departments, and I think it is also largely due to stress. The Liberal Democrats believe that rehabilitation must be at the heart of any approach within our prison system. That means investing in better education, alongside introducing a through-the-gates mentoring programme to support prisoners as they transition back into society. Education is a key area. I recently raised it with the MOJ, because Government analysis shows a significant decrease in core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been felt most acutely in women’s prisons, where there has been a 30% fall in the number of hours for which women can access prison education. The Government urgently need to set out a plan to reverse that trend, otherwise the cycle of reoffending will simply continue for far too many people. Reoffending, as mentioned by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is estimated to cost taxpayers £20.9 billion every year. I sat down with a group of ex-offenders earlier this year, working with the organisation Revolving Doors. One of the ex-offenders I was chatting to had been in prison 17 times on short sentences. He explained that drug addiction was ruling his life; when he was released from prison, in order to fund a drug addiction that was costing him £250 a day, he would commit theft to the value of £750 a day. He would re-sell the stolen items so that he could afford his drug habit. This shows that there is a cost to our businesses as well. If we do not get the criminal justice system working, and if we do not invest in people and stop the cycle of reoffending to fund addiction, those people get trapped in the criminal justice system. Nowhere in our system is the “investor save” principle stronger than in our criminal justice system. A well-functioning Probation Service is indispensable to rehabilitating ex-offenders. A dysfunctional Probation Service fails victims. Probation officers are expected to manage ever larger caseloads while receiving less training. Combined with poor pay, it is little wonder that many leave, despite wanting to help. A probation officer said to me, in one of my surgeries, that when she first started in probation 30 years ago, she spent 30 minutes with an offender she was managing. When she came out of the meeting, her boss said, “Why on earth did you only spend 30 minutes with that person? How on earth could you get to know them in just 30 minutes?” She said that if she spends 30 minutes with somebody now, she is told she needs to speed up because she has spent far too long with them and has far too many people to get through. She has stuck it out—she is still in the Probation Service—but so many people leave. We have a real retention crisis, because nobody goes into probation to tick boxes; they go in because they truly believe that they can change people’s lives. In February this year, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the efficiency and reliability of the Probation Service. It concluded that “the Probation Service in England and Wales is failing”, that it is “teetering on the edge of collapse”, and that its performance has significantly worsened since the MOJ and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service brought probation under full public control in 2018-19. The failure of the system is epitomised by record numbers of prisoners being recalled to custody. At the end of March 2025, recalled prisoners accounted for 15% of the entire prison population—a 49% increase since 2021. I recognise that the Government will have invested £700 million in probation by 2028-29, but we are yet to see a significant step change to show that that investment has stabilised the service. It is not just about the investment, though; it is about the culture shift that is desperately needed in probation. I have had many conversations with the Prisons Minister in the other place on this topic and I know it is something he feels passionately about. Keeping the public safe also requires improvements to policing, a return to visible neighbourhood policing and an end to the scourge of officers stuck behind desks completing administrative work. Even though policing has received an uplift, cases are, as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds said, far more complex and require far more police time. This situation—alongside the alarming reduction in police front counters and stations—has left communities, especially those in my constituency, feeling abandoned. I should not see constituents turning around with shock when they see a police officer walking down the street with me in areas like Selsey; they are so not used to community policing people acted like they had never seen a police officer before when they saw us. The Government should commit, as part of their upcoming police force reorganisation, to embedding a dedicated rural and coastal crime team in every police force, ensuring that rural crime does not go unpunished.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of my constituents have been left bitterly disappointed by the Government’s recent announcement cancelling the later stages of Project Gigabit. Chichester did not receive a single completed upgrade from that project—all the households and businesses that were due to benefit were included in the later stages of the scheme, and as a result, they have now missed out entirely. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent meeting between me and the relevant Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, so that I can discuss what will be done for these residents?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Steel Trade Measure · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to change my question on the hoof based on what the Minister just said. Does he share my concern for the smaller steel fabricators that cannot buy large bulk orders of steel? They are reliant on being able to order when an order comes in for them. I have a steel fabricator in my constituency called S-FABS. It is a fifth generation business, and it is telling me that this is the hardest it has ever had it—it is worse than covid. It is not sure that it will be able to survive because overseas manufacturers will just start fabricating steel to avoid the tariffs. Can he please reflect on the effect on the small and medium-sized fabricators that currently feel like the strategy is all to protect British Steel, and they are behind that, but to the detriment of those downstream providers?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is right to highlight the number of NEETs in this country. We probably should not call them NEETs, because so many of them are trying to find employment, education or training. They want to cut their teeth on the opportunities that hospitality venues such as rural pubs provide. Does she agree that, if we can take some pressure off those rural pubs, they will be more than willing, ready and able to bring young people into their businesses, to give them the skills to go on and do other things? Right now, with the pressure that they face from all angles, the owners end up doing all the work themselves.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  From April 2026, the Horse and Groom in East Ashling in my constituency saw its business rates rise from £11,000 a year to £32,000 a year. That is an additional £22,000 that it has to find out of nowhere. It is a rural business and it is busy—when someone visits the pub, it is full, thriving and buzzing—but ironically, it does not matter if more people come through the door, because the money is leaving just as quickly due to all the additional costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why those businesses need the Government to step in and support them? It is not about being busy. These are not failing businesses; they are thriving businesses that cannot make the books add up at the moment.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about his local ICB. The underspend issue has plagued the dentistry contract over many years. The ICB for Sussex did manage to commission more urgent dental care using its underspend, meaning that it had very little to give back to the Treasury. That was absolutely the right thing to do; I commend my hon. Friend for recognising that that is an opportunity that Cornwall ICB could take. However, the Sussex ICB invested in urgent dental care while not addressing the problem that we have in routine dental care. Residents in Chichester cannot access routine dental care in their own city and are forced to travel considerable distances. That takes time out of people’s lives, costs money, and creates additional risks. Imagine someone making that 140-mile round trip for a routine appointment, only to discover that they require an emergency procedure. They would be miles away from their home and family, and might not be capable of driving themselves home afterwards. That is completely unacceptable in today’s society. To make matters worse, a number of individuals told me that they had been removed from their surgery’s patient list, particularly during the pandemic when they did not want to be in close contact with others. They had no notification that that was happening. Others were informed out of the blue that their surgery was switching to private care and that, unless they paid, they would need to seek treatment elsewhere. Given the costs involved, as reflected in the national figures, many simply choose to go without care altogether. On top of that, individuals who have been lucky enough to secure an NHS place often face enormous waiting times for treatment. Jade shared her experience of being placed on a waiting list for routine root canal treatment and then being ignored for months. At 28-weeks pregnant, she suddenly found herself in excruciating pain and required emergency surgery. As we know, that costs the taxpayer a lot more than if the issue is addressed before it becomes an emergency. Another mother contacted me to say that three years ago her son developed an abscess over Christmas. They were unable to secure emergency treatment so they joined a waiting list at three separate practices. They still have not secured an appointment. Those examples all point to a broken system in Chichester and across the country—one that is failing my constituents and worsening health outcomes. In the long run, it is also making the country poorer: the failure to invest in preventive care means that individuals require more serious and expensive treatment further down the line. This has to end. That view is shared by the dentists I spoke to ahead of today’s debate. A key issue raised by them and many across the profession is the state of the NHS dental contract. The British Dental Association identified it as a major factor driving NHS dentists into the private sector. The current settlement has been widely criticised since its inception back in 2006. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report in 2023 calling for an urgent overhaul of the system, and the Labour party promised to renegotiate the contract in its manifesto. One former dental nurse who contacted me described the contracts as being like “tying dentists’ hands behind their backs.” That is hardly practical if they are trying to perform a root canal procedure. The contracts are failing patients because the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS is limited according to the units of dental activity that they have been commissioned to deliver. The nurse I spoke to suggested patients are being referred to hospitals for routine procedures because contractual arrangements prevent practices from carrying them out themselves and being renumerated. The Government promised to reform the contracts, but they have been slow to address problems that are widely recognised across the sector. The consultation that the Government announced in April must lead to a contract that is genuinely patient-focused, with greater flexibility in commissioning. When it was announced, the Government committed to bringing out the consultation before the summer, but the official line has changed slightly to “in due course”. I share the concern raised by campaigners that any further delay will mean that a new system will not be implemented before the end of this Parliament. Will the Minister commit to bringing out the consultation before the summer and to a firm deadline for when formal contract renegotiations will begin? Frankly, we cannot afford any further delays. Another issue is costs. Lab costs went up 9% last year, but NHS contract holders got just a 3.55% uplift—add to that the hikes in national insurance contributions, which have exacerbated an already dismal situation. The British Dental Association believes that an average NHS dentist is losing £25 per routine dental check. Without support and changes to the contracts, many practices will continue to be pushed into the private sector, as we have already seen happen to many. In West Sussex, the number of dentists with NHS activity has dropped by 13% since 2019. I imagine that that figure is actually an underestimation, because a practice can offer just one NHS appointment a year and still feature on the list of NHS providers. Local dentists are also concerned that the merger of the Surrey and Sussex ICBs, alongside a 50% reduction in ICB running costs, could undermine the local commissioning expertise and local relationships with providers. Can the Minister today provide any reassurance that, at a time of significant change within our ICBs, they will be given the resource to maintain and improve relationships with contract providers? The Government talk a good game on dentistry, but they are tinkering around the edges and leaving major issues such as the contracts so far unresolved. They quietly dropped their manifesto pledge of delivering 700,000 more dental appointments, under the guise of broadening the definition of urgent dental appointments for clinical reasons. That is a sticking plaster that addresses the requirement for more urgent dental appointments, but does not address those who cannot get routine care, which in many cases would prevent them from needing the emergency care. The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms that will address the root of the crisis. Our £750 million plan would begin to undo years of underfunding, guarantee urgent and emergency dental care for everyone who needed it, and hopefully bring an end to DIY dentistry. That would be needed to address the backlogs in emergency care. I have heard of wait times of up to 18 months at St Richard’s in Chichester for complex dental treatment such as difficult extractions. It is clear that the system is broken. Nobody is naive enough to believe that it can be addressed overnight, but the Government have had two years. All the while, residents in Chichester continue to have a lack of access to basic dental services. Dentists want to help patients, but it is not currently financially viable for many to stay in the NHS. That has to change, and I urge the Government to listen carefully to contributions from all Members in today’s debate, and take the steps that they promised in their manifesto.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about local government finances. My constituency currently sits in two different district councils. The Government’s proposals would mean that my residents in Pagham and Bersted will end up in a coastal authority that will be bankrupt on day one; the rest of my constituents will be in an authority that should be on a sound financial footing. What will happen to my residents in Pagham and Bersted? Their council tax bills will go up overnight to manage the debt that is currently held in Adur and Worthing, when their current council is on a sound financial footing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an unacceptable position for my residents to be put in, when they did not ask for this?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  For most people, illicit finance is most prevalent on our high streets, when they see illegal vape shops or barbershops that do not have any trade but seem to be doing quite well. Does my hon. Friend agree that illicit finance is not necessarily always in big mansions, and can often feel very close to home?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  My first job was in a local café washing pots when I was 13, and then in my 20s, I opened my own restaurant in that same location, offering young people in my local community their first job. But when I am out in Chichester, all my businesses tell me that they are so squeezed at every single angle that they cannot take risks on young people any more. Will the Minister lay out what he will do to support hospitality, specifically looking at reforming business rates so that those businesses can offer the right path for our young people to cut their teeth in work?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak in today’s King’s Speech debate, with the theme “Backing business to create economic growth”. I know from meeting businesses across my constituency in all fields—be it hospitality and retail, manufacturing, haulage, technology, agriculture and horticulture, or the creative industries—that they are ready, willing and able to play their part in achieving economic growth for this country. However, right now it is hard to see how that will be achieved given that businesses are being squeezed from all directions. They are facing rising costs, additional employer national insurance contributions, sky-high energy bills and a workforce who are struggling to get to the end of the month with anything left in their bank accounts. Although my Chichester constituency is often described as “affluent”, the cost of living crisis is felt acutely there. In fact, last month a Resolution Foundation report entitled the “Slurp Index” looked at the ratio of average gross hourly earnings to Guinness pint prices. It concluded that in somewhere like Trafford, the average median hourly wage will earn someone just over four pints when they are getting a round in on a Friday, but in Chichester, it does not even stretch to two and a half pints, which would not make anyone popular with their co-workers. It’s halves for everyone in Chichester—I’m very sorry. The high costs in Chichester are compounded by the fact that desperately needed improvements to the A27 have been removed entirely from the Government’s road investment strategy. Without investment, the road will continue to strangle regional trade and competitiveness for Chichester. It feels more and more likely that it is quicker to get around by sea than by the roads in my constituency. That brings me to the clean water Bill, which aims to undo years of dissatisfaction with the water industry. Over the weekend, I joined the Surfers Against Sewage paddle-out protest. Ironically, we were told not to get in the water because a sewage outflow had discharged into the Solent and the water was not safe. It did not stop us from getting in and highlighting just how important our water is to us in the Chichester constituency, as Chichester harbour is a national landscape. The legislation that the Government are bringing forward must deliver an overhaul of how our water industry is regulated, starting with the scrapping of Ofwat—a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since 2022. In the legislation, I hope that we will see many of the 44 amendments that the Liberal Democrats tabled at Committee stage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, and which the Government chose not to accept. One of those amendments included a statutory responsibility for water companies to measure the volume of spills they release, rather than the arbitrary measure of time, as doing so would accurately reflect the actual levels of pollution. This is vital, as the Environment Agency looks to enforce stricter targets at waste water treatment works around my constituency in sensitive areas that have seen high levels of pollution, like Bosham, Chichester harbour and the chalk stream River Lavant. There was discharge into the River Lavant for a total of 285 days in 2024—but that was counted as one discharge; we need to know the volume rather than the time spent discharging. This issue fills my inbox, because in Chichester are passionate about our rivers, coastline and national landscape. Another key issue that residents raise with me is the behaviour of rogue property management companies. Chichester residents are living in properties where the verge is not maintained and saplings are dropped into holes in the ground and left to die, before being removed six months later for the whole process to start again. Residents describe management companies as faceless, with non-existent customer service except when they are told that their service charge is increasing exponentially. In some cases, that has led to residents moving from the homes they fought so hard to purchase, because they can no longer afford to live there. In the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, the Government have the opportunity to tackle this issue head on.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Regulating these companies effectively and putting a cap on excessive service charges, particularly when there is no evidence that the service is actually being delivered, would really change the game for a lot of people who feel trapped in their estates. I have met with the Housing Minister and shared my residents’ accounts with him, and I hope that the legislation being brought forward will start to address the issue. As has been seen throughout the country in the recent local elections and current polling, the Government have failed to seize the initiative when it comes to the direction of the economy. People wanted change, but they are still left wanting. There was much in the King’s Speech that my constituents hope will make a difference to them, including in relation to the matters that I have raised, the police reform Bill, the ticket tout Bill or the European partnership Bill. However, given the record of this Government, many people will be quite rightly concerned that these reforms will once again be either U-turned on or fudged. I hope they are wrong, and I will of course continue to work for my constituents in Chichester to ensure that their concerns are properly represented.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Conflict in the Middle East: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, the owner of a haulage business—a vital industry that keeps our economy moving—has reported a 40% increase in the cost of diesel. It is at risk of going bust, while companies like BP are reporting record profits. Given that the impact of the conflict will be felt up to eight months after its conclusion, will the Chancellor please commit to cutting fuel duty, to keep my businesses and my residents on the road?

• 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?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 6, page 17, line 11, at end insert— “(9) After section 15 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, insert— ‘ 15A Entitlement to Crown Court funding levels in certain proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court (1) This section applies to criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court where— (a) an individual is charged with an either-way offence; and (b) the court, having regard to the sentencing guidelines, considers it likely that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months will be imposed upon conviction. (2) Where this section applies, any relevant representation order shall provide for remuneration at the same rates and under the same conditions as would apply if the proceedings were determined in the Crown Court.’” This amendment links legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It ensures that defendants facing more than 12 months' imprisonment receive Crown Court level funding, regardless of which court the case is heard in. The amendment would link legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It would ensure that defendants facing more than 12 months’ imprisonment received Crown court-level legal aid funding, regardless of which court the case was heard in. The context of this is that the Bill’s equality statement acknowledges that “if more cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ courts, it is likely that an increased proportion of these defendants may be ineligible for legal aid when they would otherwise have been eligible if their case had been heard at the Crown Court.” That is because the eligibility threshold for receiving representation from a publicly funded lawyer in the magistrates court is an annual income of below £22,325—significantly lower than the Crown court threshold of £37,500. As a result, individuals in full-time minimum wage employment may not qualify for legal aid in the magistrates court. Without that being addressed, it is clear that we will face an increase in the number of defendants attending court without legal representation, which undermines fairness for all those involved. Complainants, victims and witnesses may be cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator of the crime; it could slow proceedings down; it risks unfairness to the accused; and it means that the outcome of the cases will depend on whether the defendant can afford expensive lawyers, not on the true justice of the case. That concern is compounded by the fact that clause 6 provides magistrates with greater sentencing powers, meaning that defendants will be facing more serious cases. It will also prolong hearings, which will reduce the savings the Government claim they will make by shifting cases into the magistrates court. Our amendment would ensure that, if the Government’s plans are implemented, which we oppose, legal aid would be linked to the sentence length, ensuring that those who face longer sentences in the magistrates court received the funding they would expect in the Crown court. There is a lower threshold for legal aid in the magistrates court because it is assumed that cases will be shorter and simpler. That will no longer be the case, with more serious cases taking place that could take days to complete. Our amendment would avoid concerns about two-tier justice and an increase in the number of defendants appearing in court without legal representation.

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

  More

  Q I have a quick question for Cassia. The Government proposals rely on the magistrates court taking on a significant amount of additional work and, importantly, sentencing powers. Have the Government adequately outlined how that will be mitigated in the magistrates courts? What assessment have you made about how much quicker they will be able to hear cases compared with the Crown court? Cassia Rowland: We have not done an in-depth assessment of that. If by mitigation you are thinking about the justice fairness outcome, we have been principally focused on the ability of the courts to cope with this, but there is, as Emma mentioned, an acceptance that summary justice is rapid justice and it can be a bit rough around the edges. There needs to be a clear-eyed assessment of the trade-off you are potentially making between swifter justice by hearing more cases in magistrates courts and more robust justice in the Crown court.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his impassioned speech about the state of our roads. I was recently speaking to a driving instructor in my constituency who literally relies for his livelihood on having a car that is on the road. Every day that his car is taken off the road, he loses £250 of income, and over the past two years he has spent more than £600 repairing his car because of potholes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a human and a business cost when our roads are falling apart?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Phone Use in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I spent time with teachers and students from Chichester high school who have implemented the use of lockable magnetic pouches. Students told me that this had improved their focus in lessons and, interestingly, that the number of bathroom breaks had halved. Their use has reduced the pull of the addictive features on phones, and teachers report that children are just being children at break times rather than being glued to their phones. I am glad that the Minister shares my ambition to see every school become phone free, but what support are the Government going to provide for schools that have really tight budget restrictions to enable them to achieve this?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he allows me the opportunity to thank organisations that offer community transport, such as the Selsey Venture Club in my constituency or Contact 88, which help people get to the places they need to go when transport infrastructure is lacking. I have met representatives of National Highways on multiple occasions since being elected, and I know that the original proposals for the A27 still exist in a drawer somewhere ready to be brought back to the table to address a road that does not function and remains in the top 10 nationally for casualties. National Highways has agreed to fund a study into the Fishbourne roundabout, which desperately needs addressing. That is due to report in the spring and I hope the Government will be forthcoming with funding for the proposed improvements, as it is such a dangerous roundabout. I am one of many who have nearly been involved in an accident on that roundabout and I fear there will be a fatality before long. The A27 Chichester bypass remains part of a future road investment scheme and the Roads Minister has met me to hear my plea to fund its improvement. It would be great if the Minister here today could provide reassurance that funding will be attached to the A27 for that future road investment scheme—something all my constituents will be desperate to hear. If she is unable to commit to the level of funding required, will she please meet me and National Highways to explore alternative schemes to address how people move around in my area? The Government are keen to get more people on to public transport to reduce reliance on cars in particular, but the increase in fares from £2 to £3 has had a significant impact on constituents who are trying to do just that. Cristina’s children get the bus to school every day. She encourages public transport, but the cost is £26 for a seven-day child pass and the young people do not always get a seat—it is totally unacceptable. If Cristina chooses to take her three children into the city for the day, the cheapest option is a DayRider. That costs her £17 for two bus journeys that last approximately 10 minutes each way. All this makes travelling by car by far the easier and more sensible option. That is why we are calling for the reinstatement of the £2 bus fare cap and for fees to be halved for under-18s. At the same time, bus routes are being amended to cover new housing developments without any additional services being added, so routes take longer than they did and cost more—a perfect cocktail to disincentivise bus use. What steps are the Government taking to encourage more people to use buses and to ensure that in places with major developments, such as Chichester, adequate work is being undertaken to make sure that bus services for current residents are not affected? Importantly, what steps are they taking to make sure that public transport is a material consideration on new developments, rather than an afterthought? There are some great examples of active travel in my patch, particularly making the most of the disused railway lines along the Centurion Way into the South Downs. The issue that councils such as West Sussex county council face is that funding for those schemes is often linked to performance-related measures set by Active Travel England. That creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, with councils that are already delivering good provision being rewarded and provided with further funds, while those that struggle being left behind. Can the Minister say if the criteria linked to funding for active travel schemes will be reviewed by the Government so that areas like mine are not left behind with poor infrastructure because the county council has historically struggled to deliver them? There should not be a postcode lottery in active travel provision, and projects to create cycle lanes and footpaths take far too long from the ideas phase to the delivery phase. I will briefly touch on rail. Chichester is not endowed with services that are quick, punctual and affordable. Last year, one in five Southern Railway trains arrived in Chichester late, despite an annual season ticket to London costing nearly £8,000. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a freeze in rail fares, so we were glad to see the Government provide that last year, but my residents are still paying well over the odds for the service that they receive, which is severely lacking. The service to London is dreadfully slow relative to services from cities that are similar to ours and at a comparable distance. That is partly due to infrastructure issues that have been ignored for years, such as the Croydon bottleneck, where the Arun Valley line joins the Brighton main line. Network Rail has said that that causes a ripple effect of delays across the system, prevents future expansion of the line and creates delays across the entire network when there is a failure in service much further up the line. It does not go down well in my constituency when people ask, “Why are there delays in Chichester?”, and I say, “Oh, because of something happening in Croydon.” It is disappointing that there has not been a commitment to the relevant scheme, despite widespread campaigning by Members from across the House. Reliable services are vital if passengers are to see value for money and the benefits of choosing rail, but that is not currently being offered by Southern Railway. When the Government bring Southern Railway into public ownership, will they commit to reviewing a fast service for residents in Chichester and reconsider rail investment to deal with the Croydon bottleneck? I hope the Minister has heard my plea today on behalf of my 120,000 constituents in the Chichester area and the south-east region, because they do not ask for much. They are playing their part in the Government’s growth agenda and seeing large-scale development in their area. All they ask is to move around their community safely and easily, which is becoming less of a reality every day. I do not expect a magic money pot to appear suddenly, or even in advance of the next funding round of the road investment scheme, but I do expect fairness. I hope that, when those decisions are being made, the Minister will remember that the previous Government promised something to my constituents and then took it away. That is simply not fair.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business Operating Costs · Hansard source

  More

  The irony for many small businesses in Chichester is that they are busy, well established and popular. It is not bad business, but bad policy, that is making them struggle. “The current business rates system disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets.” Those are not my words; they are lifted from the Labour party manifesto. When should my local businesses expect the changes to business rates that they need, and will the Government please explore a commercial landowner levy in their upcoming review?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business Operating Costs · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps he is taking to support businesses with their operating costs.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as the chair of the all-party group on infant feeding. In December last year, as part of their child poverty strategy, the Government published their response to the Competition and Markets Authority on infant formula milk. There were a number of recommendations to which the Government said no, including restricting unverifiable claims on formula packaging. This is a vital issue that affects parents up and down the country, so will the Leader of the House make Government time to debate infant feeding?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last summer, Sussex ICB cut its IVF provision from three cycles to one due to budget pressures. There is currently a postcode lottery for IVF, and going through fertility treatment can be harrowing for those families. Given that additional cycles improve success rates, will the Secretary of State commit to a nationally consistent standard for IVF?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  That is an excellent point. The Government have rightly returned the number of days to 2016 levels, but with a rising backlog they need to go further and increase capacity. As pointed out by the Secret Barrister, we also have huge delays in the NHS, but we do not hear the Government proposing a cap on A&E sitting days to save the cost of having the lights on. In addition, the hours lost to unenforceable contracts have left many trials without a defendant while everyone waits for them to be delivered from prison. Given that one of the Government’s key arguments for reducing jury trials is the increasing length of trials, explicitly linked to complexity, I urge them to address the impact of those failing contracts. There are also key efficiencies to be gained from investment in the IT systems, given the widespread complaints about the functioning of wi-fi and about disrupted systems. The common platform system advertised to solve these issues is over budget and delayed. There are serious solutions to issues such as this, but rather than being addressed they are seemingly being ignored. Of course there are associated costs, but there are clearly major costs associated with not addressing the problems in the system. For example, it costs £55,000 a year to keep someone in prison, and the number of prisoners on remand has doubled in the last seven years. The savings are there as well; they just need to be realised. It is also clear from courts such as Liverpool Crown court—which I think was mentioned earlier—that efficiencies can be achieved, without spending, through a proactive and realistic approach. Jaime Hamilton KC has set out steps such as prioritising cases in which late guilty pleas are likely, which would lead to improved outcomes in case clearance. It is unfathomable to me that the Government have tasked Brian Leveson with producing two reports, the second of which is to focus on efficiency improvements and better use of technology in the court system, when surely it would be logical to produce that report first, in order to introduce those efficiencies and bring the backlog down. The Government have identified the problem that they inherited, but have arrived at entirely the wrong solutions. They are searching for an easy way out, a quick fix, but reducing access to jury trials is not that fix. It is unscrutinised, it is unfair, and it continues the trend of declining public trust in our justice system. The Government are right to say that victims are among those being let down, waiting years for justice and unable to move on with their lives, but we need solutions that work—solutions that address the causes of the crisis, reverse the systematic underfunding that has plagued the system, and genuinely improve efficiency.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Chichester district council local plan was finally adopted this summer after years of speculative development in our area in the wrong places and without the right infrastructure to go with it. This robust local plan was hard fought for by local councillors, but this Government’s new housing targets are putting more pressure on areas such as mine to deliver more homes, and it could render the local plan essentially meaningless. Appeals are being won for development on greenfield sites and farmland that were not identified in this hard-fought-for local plan. Will the Leader of the House please make time to debate the effectiveness of the Government’s planning policy, which disproportionately affects constituencies such as mine?

• 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?