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.

• 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.

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

  More

  I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating Chichester college, which is creating a programme to train up the next generation of dental assistants and nurses. Staff there are excited to be able to contribute to addressing the recruitment issues in the Chichester area.

• 19 May 2026 · Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are talking a good game on reducing the cycle of reoffending, but meaningful prison education plays a key role in that objective. Recent analysis has found a significant decrease in the core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been seen most acutely in female prisons, where there has been a fall of 30%. What is the Minister doing to reverse that decline in education hours across all prisons, end the postcode lottery that we see currently, and ensure that obligations to equality are met?

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s White Paper represents a truly critical opportunity to transform the youth justice system and, importantly, reduce lifetime offending. We know that most offenders in our prisons today are repeat offenders and that persistent offending often begins early in life, with eight in 10 prolific offenders in England and Wales committing their first crime as a child. We must stop this chain of escalation, and the earlier we intervene, the better. Nowhere is that more applicable than for children in care, those from ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs, who are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Will the Secretary of State set out how this overhaul will ensure that these children, given their specific vulnerabilities, will receive the targeted support that they desperately need? May I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the organisation SHiFT and encourage the Justice Secretary to engage with it? I believe that SHiFT’s model could be rolled out across the country, helping young people before they even commit their first crime? Education for young offenders can be a crucial step in diverting them from a path to reoffending. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner will undertake a review of education in young offender institutions, but can the Justice Secretary ensure that it will take into account the fact that 80% of young people who are sentenced have special educational needs and make sure that the support they are getting in those institutes is fit for purpose? The Youth Justice Board provides vital independent oversight of the youth justice system, yet the Government have chosen not to act on the report they commissioned from Steve Crocker, instead bringing a number of the board’s functions more directly within the remit of the Ministry of Justice. What is the purpose of those reforms? What benefit will the Government gain from bringing those functions in-house, and will the Justice Secretary address the concerns from across the sector that these reforms risk reducing specialist experience and weakening independent accountability? Finally, will the Secretary of State set out how the use of parenting orders will affect the recruitment of foster parents, those being asked to take on special guardianship orders or kinship arrangements, and those considering adoption? If parenting orders will not apply to those families, how will they be supported effectively to ensure that this measure does not lead to further family breakdowns and more children ending up in the care system?

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

  More

  The Minister said she could not support new clause 2 on RASSO courts tabled by the hon. Member for Warrington North, and other similar new clauses, because they would improve the experience of victims but do nothing to improve timelines. Well, I am delighted that my new clause 3 will address all those problems. We all agree that what is needed is a proper plan to fix the system. My party and I believe that that starts with upping the number of trials in select courtrooms across England and Wales from one to two a day. Normal sitting hours for a Crown court are 10 am to 4.30 pm, during which only one trial is heard for four hours and 35 minutes, to allow for breaks for all those involved, including the judge and witnesses, and to allow for the jury to retire, because they receive a lot of information and need breaks too. The Liberal Democrats are calling for two trials to be heard per day in select courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon, with each trial sitting for four hours. One session would run from 9 am to 1 pm and another from 2 pm until 6 pm. This simple change would nearly double court sitting time in those courtrooms. That is how to cut the backlog without eroding the right to a jury trial and jeopardising people’s experience of the justice system. Implementation would be determined at regional level by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Listing officers may schedule cases into morning or afternoon sessions or standard sitting hours according to the needs of the case. For example, an afternoon slot may be given to allow additional time for prisoner transport—we are all well-versed in the issues surrounding that contract—while standard hours may be preferable when a victim is expected to give evidence for an extended period. Court backlogs are not the same everywhere and our reforms would reflect that. HMCTS would decide at regional level which courtrooms would run two trials a day, and we would consult on exactly how many should adopt that approach across England and Wales to ensure that the system works efficiently and delivers change where it is needed most. New clause 3 would allow for the agility and flexibility that the Minister spoke about when responding to the previous group of amendments. It could also have the intended effect of pulling back in retired judges. In my Chichester constituency, we have recently reopened our Crown court, and I am pretty sure that I have quite a few retired judges knocking around in the Witterings who would quite happily come back if they were able to commit to half a day’s session, and make sure that they were finished by lunch time and back on the beach by 2 pm. During coronavirus, HMCTS conducted a pilot in Crown courts using exactly the system of two trials a day instead of one. The evidence was overwhelming: the pilot courtrooms got through 3.5 trials per week compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating on standard hours. We simply want to replicate that trial across the country. That is how to get through the backlog without eroding jury trials. It would be an evidence-based approach, because we already have a pilot that speaks to its benefit. As Leveson’s report points out, Crown court hearing time per sitting day has dropped to just 3.2 hours on average; in an entire day running from 10 am to 4.30 pm, the amount of actual sitting time has reduced to 3.2 hours. On paper, courts sit from 10 am until 4.30 pm, but in reality only a fraction of that time is spent hearing cases, because of delays, gaps, cancellations and other inefficiencies that we have discussed. Our reforms would more than double the hearing time per sitting day in participating courtrooms by eliminating that wasted time and running a more intensive court sitting day. As the Leveson report highlighted, any solution to fix the backlog is going to require resources. These trials have to happen at some point, and without the investment that would be required for the provisions that I am laying out, we will just kick the can down the road and deny victims the justice they deserve. The proposals in the Bill would require massive investment to implement an entirely new system, including the introduction of the Crown court bench division. It would be slow, costly and, according to modelling by the Institute for Government, would save only around 2% of court time, with the caveat that other efficiencies would increase that figure. That barely makes a dent in the backlog when we are looking at the erosion of jury trials. Our approach would be faster and, because we have a pilot, there is clear evidence that it would actually work. By extending hours, we can reduce the backlog and deliver justice for victims. It would make use of existing resources, target inefficiencies and deliver real results. I believe everybody would benefit from a condensed-hours model, which would provide additional time in the working day for practical work outside the court setting. It would mean that the court day was shorter for barristers, judges and juries; they would spend less time in the courtroom, which would give them more time, in a normal working day, outside the court, to make preparations for the following day. It would also mean much less waiting time. When we look at what jurors say about their experience of taking part in trials, quite often the bit that they enjoyed and appreciated is the bit when they were actually in the courtroom and could see justice being done and felt like they were a part of it. So often, the most frustrating bit for jurors is the bit when they are sat in the green room outside waiting for the trial—all the time that they feel is wasted. If we condensed the model, a juror coming in for an afternoon session might be able to do the school run in the morning; a self-employed juror—we know that serving on a jury is really challenging for self-employed people—might be able to commit to a few hours of work; and those with caring responsibilities could make sure that they are there for one half of the day. The evidence tells us that such a model would be better. Legal professionals with childcare responsibilities who took part in the pilot were more likely to report a positive experience than those without them. Right now, barristers and judges are being paid for a full day of work, despite doing on average 3.2 hours’ hearing time per sitting day due to scheduling inefficiencies because of all the other work that they are doing throughout their day, and including all the issues, such as the reasons that cases drop. Even if we paid barristers and judges a full day’s rate for only half a day’s sitting time, it would still be more efficient than the current system. It could also impact the issue of over-listing and floating cases. If a case cannot take place on a certain morning because another case has been listed, it could be scheduled for the afternoon, just four hours later, and the people who are ready to take part in it would not have to wait for another date months ahead. New clause 4, tabled in my name, would require the Lord Chancellor to commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the feasibility of introducing two court sittings per day in designated courtrooms, including an assessment of its impact on efficiency, resources and court users, and to set out the Government’s intended next step. New clause 5, also tabled in my name, would require the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs and to report annually to Parliament on progress. The Government have recognised that increasing funding and removing the cap on sitting days will absolutely support a lot of those measures, but the new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing the backlogs. That is needed to avoid the slide that we have seen in the past and to ensure consistent progress in bringing down the backlog so that we can take a mindful approach to whether measures are working and whether we need to think about introducing others. The Government have published predictions of growth in the backlog as evidence underpinning their reforms. They predict that the backlog would rise to 135,000, but the Criminal Bar Association pushed back against that figure; it thinks that it is wildly pessimistic, especially with the measures already introduced, such as taking away the cap on sitting days. The Deputy Prime Minister has said of his reforms that he does not expect the backlog to decrease until 2029 and that it will not be cleared for a decade. The backlog has now exceeded 80,000, but the backlogs at courts in Wales and in the north-west and south-east of England fell considerably after the sitting days were added, and that was prior to the effects of increasing sitting days across the board. The Criminal Bar Association said that the move was already having an effect. It cited Maidstone Crown court, the largest in the south-east outside the capital, where the case backlog had fallen by more than 5% in the past six months. New clause 13 would require a report on the effect of the reforms in the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system—another issue that we have discussed throughout the Committee’s proceedings. It has been demonstrated that the public have more confidence in juries than in single-judge hearings. I think we can all agree that trust in the justice system is vital for keeping witnesses, defendants and victims engaged. The new clause would require a report into the impact on public trust of the Government’s reforms. Currently, six in 10 people express a “fair amount” or a “great deal” of confidence in juries delivering the right verdict, compared with around four in 10 for courts and judges more generally. New clause 17 would require the Secretary of State to review and report on whether the Bill has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice system, including its impact on delays, backlogs, and the experience of victims and witnesses. On a number of occasions, Brian Leveson discussed a three-pronged approach to dealing with the backlog—reform, funding and efficiencies. He also said that “all the levers” must be pulled, and the Minister has said the same. The “efficiencies” part of that three-pronged approach is largely set out in part 2 of his “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts”, to which the Government have yet to respond. Improving efficiency would safeguard the system from getting into this mess again, and it is vital that the Government pursue reforms that improve that. The new clause would therefore require the Secretary of State to review the Bill’s impact on efficiency in the criminal justice system, focusing specifically on delays, backlogs and victims’ experience. New clause 22 would require the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog in the criminal justice system. Leveson himself suggests that the use of remote hearings with safeguards should be expanded to first hearings in the magistrates court, managed in police stations by prisoner escort and custody services contractors. He also proposes allowing for remote attendance during trial for certain professional witnesses, such as police officers, by default, and allowing remand defendants to attend sentencing hearings remotely, except when victim impact statements will be delivered. Sir Brian Leveson outlined the need for more remote hearings, and we are calling on the Government to publish a strategy on how that will be implemented, because it is clear that there is potential for significant time savings and efficiencies if the Government get this right. It is also clear that investment will be needed in remote facilities not just in courts, but in prisons. Many people in the justice system have told me about evidence being presented on memory sticks, the telly not working, the sound not working when they are trying to listen to oral evidence, or the screen not working for somebody to give remote evidence. We need to know how the Government will strategise all the remote proceedings if they are going to progress in that way.

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

  More

  The hon. Member is making an important point that we have not really discussed on the Committee. It is estimated that half the prison population have a reading age of less than 11; that is to say, they are counted as functionally illiterate. We have seen a decline in prison education. How does she expect all these prison inmates to be able to negotiate or navigate an appeals process?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Chichester high school in my constituency has introduced Yondr pouches—I imagine there are many similar pouches. Children can take their phones to school, but then they have to put them in those lockable pouches. They do not have access to them throughout the day, and they can unlock the pouches when they leave school. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a potential solution, especially for children who need their phones for health reasons or who, for other reasons, need their devices to make sure they can be in school?

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

  More

  Clause 3 and its various parts outline how trials can take place without juries. The Liberal Democrats have always fundamentally opposed the move to remove the right to a trial in front of one’s peers and the introduction of single-judge trials. To be clear, we do not accept the status quo and neither does anyone who I have spoken to in the legal profession or courts. The backlogs are totally unacceptable and they are failing victims, defendants and the people working in the criminal justice system. But no one in that system thinks that the fault lies with the jury trial system. In fact, Sir Brian stated that in our recent evidence session. The decision is being made without any decisive modelling that would demonstrate that it would have the intended effect. There is also a timing issue with the proposal to restrict the use of a jury. Nationally, we have seen an intense displeasure with our democracy, and faith in politics and our political system is at an all-time low. It is fractured and deeply distrustful. When we have mistrust in our political system, it seeps into our justice system. Around six in 10 people express a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in juries delivering the right verdict compared with around four in 10 for courts and judges more generally. Clause 3 proposes something that will risk a great deal without the evidence that shows it will actually work. That is why it is so strongly opposed. The Government instead should be implementing evidence-based reforms to target inefficiencies, including but not limited to negotiating the failed prisoner escort contract, introducing victim-led intensive case management across the regions, and investing in rehabilitation to reduce reoffending. They could also explore reducing the court backlog by running two trials in a day in select courtrooms instead of one, making more efficient use of time by nearly doubling the hearing time per sitting day and accelerating the throughput of cases. They could also develop and implement a more ambitious strategy to reduce delays in rape and serious sexual offences cases, or implement their own manifesto pledge to introduce speciality RASSO courts, which we will no doubt debate at a later stage of the Bill. I am confident that the Minister will say, as she did in the evidence session, “Why is the backlog not coming down if we can make the system work better?” She put that question to Caroline Goodwin KC, Claire Davies KC and Samantha Hillas KC, saying, “I have not seen any evidence that it can be reduced absent reform from the circuits.” Caroline Goodwin came back with: “The reality is that we have not been able to do this. Because there has been a consistent cap on sitting days, judges have not been able to open up court days. They have not been able to run blitz days where they can really take hold of a case and shake it and say, ‘Right, what is going on?’ We have not had any great directives to the CPS to say, ‘When you’re charging these cases, you need to review these very thoroughly.’ Throughout this entire time, the criminal Bar and the entire justice system has been brought to its knees. So if you are saying, ‘Is there any empirical evidence that this doesn’t work on your circuit, Ms Goodwin?’, we have not been able to do it.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 48, Q94.] Why do we believe that we need to protect the safeguard of a jury trial while still reforming the criminal courts in other ways? The Lammy review in 2017 found that black and Chinese women were convicted at higher rates than white women in magistrate courts but not by juries. The Criminal Bar Association commissioned an independent study of criminal barristers; of the 2,029 who responded, 94% raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the Crown court bench division and 88% were against the introduction of a Crown court bench division altogether. If we take the figures in the impact assessment that the Government have provided at face value, the proposal will save 5,000 sitting days per annum. That is around 3.5% of the Crown court workload. That means that rape complainants or victims who are currently waiting years for their own trial to be heard might see their cases brought forward by about a week. On the Government’s own estimates, the changes will not start taking effect until after the next general election. It is not providing a solution to the current crisis. Indeed, the impact assessment was based on a premise that it compared “do nothing” with the effects of all of the Government’s measures proposed in the Bill, but nobody is proposing “do nothing”. Radical investment and reform is already taking place and is welcomed. The Government were right to introduce removing the cap on sitting days and encourage blitz courts in a number of courts in the different regions. That has cross-party support and will bring down the backlog by more direct means. I would also like to briefly highlight the perversity in the cut-off of three years. Let us take the case of a 20-year-old student charged with unlawful wounding, where someone’s face was gashed by a glass thrown in a bar. Under the sentencing guidelines, if they were of good character they would face imprisonment of between two and three years. That conviction would be life changing and that young defendant would not qualify for trial by jury under these proposals. Let us take exactly the same case, but involving a 40-year-old defendant with a long criminal record who has been to prison before. Because of their record, the likely sentence for the same offence would exceed three years and they would get trial by jury, whereas a young man with no convictions would not. I ask the Committee to reflect on the perversity created by changing the threshold. I conclude by reiterating that clause 3, which sets out how the Crown court should allocate a case for trial without a jury and the procedure, should not be included in the Bill, and I shall vote against its inclusion.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that there is so much untapped potential in the parents who are currently trapped at home trying to support their children who are not being supported into schools? When I hosted a recent roundtable with parents in my constituency, I met ex-teachers, teaching assistants and educational psychologists, and none of them are at work because they are not being supported.

• 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?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this issue disproportionately affects women and those who have caring responsibilities? I have a constituent who was successfully paying down her student loan. She took a few years off to have children, and when she came back to the employed world, her bill was bigger than when she left university, so the starting point was higher. She knows that she will be paying it off until she retires. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an unacceptable situation to be in?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s White Paper talks about having an “expert teacher” in every room. That is certainly a problem in the profession, with one in three teachers leaving after five years of service. Chichester University has created a teacher training programme that embeds inclusivity at the root of every module rather than teaching it as a separate module. Will the Secretary of State join me in Chichester to talk to the faculty leading that programme so that every child in this country can benefit from that sort of teaching?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for her comprehensive comments at the end of this debate. I also thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging debate on all the topics that touch on transport in the south-east. I am especially glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) was here to talk about ferries; if I am ever in a room with him and he does not mention ferries, something does not feel quite right. I am glad that he had the opportunity to raise his specific concerns relating to the Isle of Wight. I reflect on how, when they talk about their frustrations, residents are often told that this Government are investing additional money. They talk in large figures that sound incredibly impressive, but when residents cannot see that investment—when they are still sat in traffic, day in, day out; when they are not seeing their local bus services improve or their county council deliver investment into active travel strategies—it leaves a bitter taste in their mouths. All those figures mean nothing when they still cannot travel from A to B and see their mum who lives on the other side of the constituency, get to work or drive their kids to school. When we talk about these transport issues, the figures can sometimes make us lose sight of the impact on people struggling day to day. Local authorities getting additional money is all well and good. However, we see councils such as West Sussex county council deciding to cling on to power with their very fingertips, cancelling elections twice—two years in a row—meaning that its cabinet will end up serving a seven-year term—that is incredibly frustrating for people in my local area, who do not get the opportunity to hold it to account when it has failed us in addressing the potholes crisis and active travel. Finally, the Minister mentioned that she would happily visit any constituency, so I extend an invitation to her and the new Roads Minister to come and sit in traffic with me around Chichester. She can come any day: I guarantee I will be able to find us some congestion so that she can see the impact it has on my constituents. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered transport in the South East.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Prison Capacity: Annual Statement · Hansard source

  More

  This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister. The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate? The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online? The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament? The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?

• 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.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Creative Education · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 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?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Children · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a really important point about local government reorganisation. Voluntary and charitable sector organisations rely on local authority funding and Government funding—they rely on multiple streams of income. I plead with the Minister to make sure that the Government funding, at least, is secured beyond one year, so that these organisations have the reassurance during LGR that they will be able to maintain their provision in some sense. We also need a statutory definition of honour-based abuse, and better training for police, social care and education professionals. In every police force, we need specialist violence against women and girls taskforces, and every force should undergo training via Naturewatch on the links between domestic abuse and the abuse of animals. Perpetrators of domestic abuse identify the special bond people build with their pets and can use that to exert control over partners or children. Across the country, we have seen cases where warning signs were missed, reports were ignored and opportunities to intervene were tragically lost. The programme run by Naturewatch has been taken up by police forces across the country, including the Metropolitan police and Sussex police, but we should encourage every force to take it on, as there is a direct link between the treatment of animals and domestic abuse. We must set up support services so that they are in the ideal position to listen to a child crying out for help, no matter how hard it is to hear them. We in the Liberal Democrats are also extremely concerned by the chronic underfunding of children’s social care. After a decade of cuts to local authority budgets under Conservative Governments, many councils have been forced to scale back their early intervention services. I have been told by those working in the sector that they feel like they are firefighting every day, rather than spending the time they so desperately want to spend with the families they could prevent from entering crisis. Instead, they are dealing with mounting caseloads, burnout and an inability to resource their departments properly. This is short-sighted and dangerous. Tragically, too often, the consequences are felt too late. The report into the heartbreaking case of Sara Sharif is a damning indictment of Surrey county council’s failure to protect a young girl from her abusers. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a passionate plea for the recommendations of the safeguarding review to be explored by the Government so that lessons can be learned nationally. Early support does prevent crises from escalating, it protects children who witness domestic abuse in their household, and it identifies risks at the earliest opportunity. The Liberal Democrats have long called for greater integration between health and social care, with far more involvement from local authorities in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services. This must include education settings, which play a vital role in identifying situations where abuse may be present. We need to ensure that training and support for teachers is readily available, so that they can spot the signs and call for help. Teachers have an increasingly challenging role in our complex environment: they are not only teachers but, quite often, caregivers and social workers. They may be the only lifeline that a child has, so they need to be able to spot the signs of domestic abuse, be they misbehaviour, withdrawal or a failure to engage in the classroom. In addition, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) mentioned, it is so important to have education campaigns so that children understand and can spot the signs of what is not a happy household, and understand what is normal and what is not, and what they should and should not put up with. Another vital part of the picture is the family court system, which plays a key role in protecting children from situations where domestic abuse is present while also considering the importance of keeping families together. It is a desperately difficult job, yet there have been a number of situations where the system has failed and, frankly, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. I thank the Government for their recent steps, including removing parental responsibility from those convicted of the most serious sexual offences, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Dulwich and West Norwood. Campaigners fought hard for that change, and it is welcome. Could we also consider removing parental responsibility from those on bail, to ensure that individuals capable of committing horrendous abuse are kept away from their children as early as possible? With that in mind, what are the Government doing to integrate health and social care services across the country to ensure that as much protection as possible is provided for vulnerable children and families? What are the Government doing to raise awareness of the warning signs of a child living in a household with domestic abuse? When will we see further legislation to deal with the rising issues in our family court system? Will the Government consider specific measures to keep those on bail on charges of offences against children away from their children? The Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with Members in all parts of the House to ensure that every child is protected, every survivor is heard and every perpetrator is held to account.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Level 7 Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech about the reason for keeping level 7 apprenticeships. She talks about construction, but has she considered the impact that the loss of level 7 apprenticeships will have on town planners as well? Arun district council has relied on the chartered town planner apprenticeship scheme to train its own generation of town planners, because it is incredibly hard to recruit into local authority planning departments. The council is really worried about the impact that the change will have on planning, a profession that we know is really important if the Government are to achieve their agenda of building 1.5 million homes.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Level 7 Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister outline the possible impacts on local authorities taking on a town planning role? There are serious budget constraints on local authorities. It is hard to keep and retain staff in a planning department, especially when they are attracted to the private sector. Local authorities use level 7 as a key tool to upskill the workforce, which aids retention. If the Government are to achieve their mission to build all those new homes, does the Minister agree that the apprenticeship route is important?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the House has heard repeatedly in recent weeks, our justice system is crumbling under the strain in our courts, prisons and probation services, bulging at the seams, stretched to the limit and ultimately failing all who come into contact with it. It is not adequately punishing criminals, not rehabilitating them, and not protecting victims and survivors. Confidence has been slowly eroded and undermined. This has to end. The Bill provided ample opportunity for us to address these issues, with scope to consider how we tackle the looming projection of a prison population of over 100,000 in just three years’ time. I am disappointed that such a large Bill, which makes fundamental changes to sentencing, was not given the line-by-line scrutiny that a Bill Committee, rather than a Committee of the whole House, could have afforded it. The Liberal Democrats are supportive of many of the steps taken in the Bill, and, in the spirit of working collaboratively on a crisis that affects us all, we have tabled a number of amendments that seek to improve and strengthen it. For example, we welcome clause 3, which would give courts the power to order offenders to make monthly payments from their income, and we have tabled new clause 3 to ask the Government to assess whether income reduction orders could be used to fund victim support. On the topic of financial penalties, new clause 33 would create a power for sentencing courts to require offenders to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants, ensuring that their responsibility to provide support is not automatically void during a custodial sentence. Creating a presumption of a suspended sentence for terms of under 12 months is a measure for which the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned. It is a necessary step to reduce prison overcrowding, but it also plays a vital role in reducing reoffending, with rehabilitation offered in the community. Sixty-two per cent of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, but only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence or a community order. We do not need to send offenders to prison to become better criminals; we need to support them to become better citizens. Creating a rehabilitative system will, in the long term, reduce costs, protect victims and ease the pressure on our public services. The work of our justice system should be centred on that goal, for the good of all. To that end, new clause 12 would allow and facilitate access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support for prisoners held on remand before their sentencing hearings. As of June this year, 20% of the prison population are on remand and yet to have their sentencing hearings. With court backlogs at an all-time high, we see offenders arriving at their sentencing hearings, receiving their sentences, and then heading straight home because of the length of time that they have served on remand. Remand prisons are often overcrowded, and typically suffer from understaffing and inadequate facilities. These prisoners should be offered the same level of support as sentenced prisoners if we are to reduce the levels of reoffending. We are, of course, supportive of the identifier that was included in the Bill following the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), in collaboration with the Government. I commend his hard work and determination to make tangible changes for those who have experienced domestic abuse, providing greater confidence that their abusers will be dealt with suitably in the system, and I thank the Government for their constructive engagement with him on this issue. However, our campaign does not end there. New clause 8 would ensure that domestic abuse was treated as an aggravated offence, reflecting the severity and the long-term impact of such crimes on victims. New clause 9 asks the Government “to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes” to tackle violence against women and girls, for individuals sentenced to offences such as assault, battery and actual bodily harm when the victim was female. We have also tabled a number of amendments relating to the Probation Service, because none of this means anything if probation is not properly resourced. I know that the Government will refer to the £700 million of additional funding, but it is not yet being felt on the frontline of probation, where the situation remains as described by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation earlier this year. According to the inspectorate, the service “has too few staff, with too little experience and training, managing too many cases.” Without maximum caseloads, we open ourselves up to a higher risk of human error and also a more cautious approach to recalling, because staff simply do not have the capacity to manage people in the community effectively. Probation officers believe fundamentally in rehabilitation and in supporting offenders to reintegrate into society, but I must raise some serious concerns around the removal of the existing short-term and standard recalls in favour of a 56-day blanket recall for all offenders except those identified through a multi-agency public protection arrangement. For example, under the current guidance, somebody who might be engaging with mental health services in the community but not attending their probation appointment—somebody who is therefore non-compliant with their agreement—would be recalled for 28 days under a fixed-term recall. That means that, if they are in temporary accommodation, as we know a lot of people coming out of prison are, the likelihood is that the accommodation will still be there when they have served their fixed term, and they can re-engage with the programmes in the community that they were already on. Under the new arrangements, though, in the same circumstances, somebody recalled for 56 days would be coming out and, in effect, starting again, having lost their accommodation arrangements and their place on the community programme with which they were engaging, as places are typically only held for up to four weeks. The likelihood of them then going on to reoffend—in a cycle—will increase, and we will see the same people being recalled. At the other end of the spectrum, if a serious offender breached their licence by intimidating, harassing or stalking their victim, instead of receiving a standard recall, which would last until the end of their sentence, they would be returned to serve just 56 days. Those who in probation are classified as medium-risk offenders—that covers the majority of offences related to violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers—would not come under the Government’s proposed exclusions relating to MAPPA levels 2 and 3. On Monday in this Chamber, we spoke at length and there was consensus across the House that we needed to do more to support victims, but the recall measures in the Bill directly contradict that desire. There is a serious omission, which we are extremely concerned will lead to the release of dangerous criminals on to our streets, who will then continue to reoffend. New clause 31 would ensure that offenders who have committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall, and I implore the Minister to go away and look at that proposal. This Bill provided a great chance to address some key issues in our justice system, and it showed signs of life, taking an innovative approach to some issues, but it ultimately lacks vision and, expectedly, funding. I thank Members for their engagement, and encourage them to support new clause 12.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the newly appointed Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), and his determination to make tangible changes for those that have experienced domestic abuse. I thank the Government for their constructive collaboration with him by introducing into the Bill a domestic abuse identifier at the point of sentencing. The identifier will give victims greater confidence that their abusers are being appropriately dealt with in the justice system, but it would be reassuring if the Minister confirmed that this identifier will be used to ensure that those perpetrators are excluded from any future early release schemes. This Bill presented a fantastic opportunity to address the endemic challenges that plague our justice system. Those challenges are the result of years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, whose decisions have underpinned the record backlog of cases in the Crown court, as well as prison overcrowding and astronomically high reoffending rates, with victims consistently failed at every stage. We Liberal Democrats had hoped that this Bill would begin to shift the dial towards a justice system that truly protects victims and rehabilitates perpetrators, and there are indeed many elements that we support and that show promise. However, we remain concerned that the scope and ambition of the Bill are lacking, having had many of our amendments rejected due to the lack of financing behind the Bill. Many of the issues blighting our justice system stem from a lack of foresight and investment, particularly in probation and prisons, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill does not include major efforts to rectify that. As a party, we are supportive of suspending short sentences of under 12 months and have long campaigned for this measure. Not only is it a necessary step to address prison overcrowding, but it would play a vital role in reducing reoffending. While 62% of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence. Ending the cycle of reoffending is crucial to reducing crime levels and relieving pressure on the justice system. As the Government have stated, there will be exceptions, but they are yet to clarify what those exceptions will be. Will they include violent offenders, those convicted for sexual offences against children and those who possess indecent images? It would be very helpful if the Minister laid out all the exemptions. We have tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing our concerns or furthering aspects of the Bill. New clause 30 aims to address imprisonment for public protection. IPP sentences were a type of indeterminate sentence used in England and Wales from 2005 to 2012 for dangerous offenders who did not qualify for a life sentence, but still posed a public risk. These sentences featured a minimum term, but no maximum, with release contingent on the Parole Board deeming the offender no longer a threat. It was during the coalition Government that we abolished IPP sentences, but many remain in prison serving these sentences long after their tariff has expired. Our new clause would commence a resentencing exercise, which has cross-party support and should be implemented as a priority. The amendment was first recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022, and I note that the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has tabled a similar measure—new clause 19. Although we welcome the Government’s approach to community sentencing, reoffending rates are demonstrably higher among those who are unemployed. In 2023, the reoffending rate for those who were unemployed six weeks after release from prison was 36.5%, compared with 20% for those who were employed at the same point. Amendment 44 therefore calls on the Government to publish a report assessing whether the driving prohibition in the Bill could impede an individual’s ability to attend work, education or rehabilitation programmes. Can the Minister inform the House what assessment the Government have made of that? Ensuring access to those pathways is vital if we are to reduce reoffending effectively. We are also concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to support victims of violence against women and girls. I know that this is one of the Government’s key priorities this parliamentary term, yet without collecting the data, it is an empty promise that it will be hard for the Government to show they have actually achieved. New clause 36 would continue the important campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne to ensure that domestic abuse is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, while new clause 37 would require an assessment of the introduction of mandatory rehabilitation programmes focused on violence against women and girls for those convicted of assault, battery or actual bodily harm against a woman or girl, even if domestic abuse is not included as an aggravating factor. These measures are designed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse and related offences are placed at the centre of the justice system’s work, ensuring that such crimes are met with appropriate sentences and that rehabilitation is specifically targeted at those who commit these serious offences. In line with that approach, new clause 38 calls for screening for traumatic brain injuries among prisoners at the start of their custodial sentences. A Brainkind study last year showed that 80% of women in the criminal justice system in Wales may be suffering with a brain injury, while Government data shows that more than half of female prisoners are victims of domestic abuse. These figures identify that a significant proportion of the female prison population may have undiagnosed brain injuries resulting from domestic abuse, leaving many without the treatment they need and undermining their rehabilitation—something that is certainly reflected in their ability to engage with probation services after leaving prison. Comprehensive screening across the prison population would enable a deeper understanding of the links between trauma, offending and reoffending. New clause 31 calls on the Secretary of State to examine the proceeds generated from the proposed income reduction orders and to consider whether they could be ringfenced to create a dedicated fund for supporting victims. New clause 39 would allow the courts to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged with certain driving offences pending the outcome of the trial as part of their bail conditions. Many hon. Members across the House have harrowing cases in their constituencies of lives lost at the hands of a drunk driver, drug driver or someone causing death by dangerous or reckless driving, and the court backlogs mean so often that those defendants are free to continue driving after the offence has occurred, sometimes waiting for months; in some cases, with drug tests taking up to six months to be received, the driver is free to continue to drive under the influence, which is just plain wrong. I know that is felt deeply across the House. New clause 40 would address the ridiculous doom loop we find ourselves in with prisoners on remand arriving at their sentencing hearing, being sentenced and then being sent home because the court backlogs mean they have served their sentence while being on remand and have not had access to any rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other support. The new clause would make rehabilitative programmes accessible for those on remand. We are also still concerned about a number of unaddressed measures in the Bill, such as the recall provisions, which allow those recalled to be released after 56 days with no involvement from the Parole Board, essentially providing a “get out of jail free” card for reoffending. This will not give the public confidence in the system. I would also be interested in the Minister’s argument as to the purpose of provisions in the Bill to allow the Probation Service to publish names and pictures of those taking part in unpaid work. The Bill does contain some good ideas to address some of the issues in our justice system, but it could and should have gone further, especially if it had adequate resourcing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne stated on Second Reading, the Bill was full of hope, but falls short of both the Liberal Democrat ambition and the ambition that the Government claim to have. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to our questions, and encourage Members across the House to support our amendments and new clauses, including new clause 30.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many schools that I have spoken to in my constituency say they cannot fund a full-time SENCO; instead, they might share them with other primary schools in the area. SENCOs are at the frontline of this issue. They want to deliver for the children they are asked to represent, but they are not paid enough nor given enough hours to do the job. We need decisions that get it right first time and support that starts when the need is identified, not after a courtroom date is set. I welcome the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on neurodivergent screening and teacher training. His principle is simple: we must identify needs early, including dyslexia; equip teachers with the knowledge and confidence to respond in class; and make specialist pathways clear and timely for those who need them. As he rightly said in his moving contribution in the main Chamber, neurodivergence is not a weakness or a flaw; with the right support, it can be a superpower. If Ministers are serious about addressing the crisis in SEND, parent voice must be at the centre. Parents know their children best and what works, because they live with the consequences of policy every day. Change will command confidence only if families can see and feel the difference.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Petitions Committee for accepting this debate. The e-petition received over 200 signatures from my constituents in Chichester. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I put on record thanks from the parental organisations and advocacy organisations, because I know she has reached out and asked to speak to them ahead of the White Paper’s publication, which is really appreciated. Time and again, when talking to parents, teachers and those in local authority about the SEND system, I hear the word “adversarial” and that it is failing to deliver for our young people. Parents often feel pitted against their school, or even against other parents, in a system that is complex to navigate and distressing for all involved. Where West Sussex county council is concerned, parents report a pattern that has been cited by many Members on both sides of the Chamber today. In the latest quarterly figures, it managed to put in place just 14.3% of all EHCPs within the 20-week statutory framework, which puts it among the worst councils in England on timelines. When an EHCP is refused, even after lengthy assessments, families appeal, then on the eve of the tribunal, the council concedes and issues the plan—but often, that is only the start of the process for those families. It wastes months that a child does not get back, and it wastes public money on process rather than provision.