Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Liz was thrown out of the RAF in 1969 when a love letter from her girlfriend was discovered. Not only did she lose her career but, as she recently discovered, she has had a criminal record for 50 years. The compensation scheme for veterans has been open since December last year, but the discharge of funds for those suffering such injustice is slow: 1,000 veterans have applied, but only 44 payments have been realised. Will the Leader of the House please make time for a debate about the process, so that those who have waited for decades can finally be compensated?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about community policing and getting police officers back into the community, so does he support my new clause 157, which seeks to streamline the way police case files are prepared and submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service? It is a common-sense approach that would reduce red tape and, most importantly, get police back out supporting victims and building the community trust that they need?

• 22 May 2025 · Independent Sentencing Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s plans lay out an expectation that they will be able to manage ex-offenders in the community under intensive supervision. A probation officer in my constituency recently told me that she was told off by her bosses for spending too long with offenders when she was booking just 15-minute appointments. Can the Lord Chancellor tell me when the promised investment will actually reach frontline probation services, and can she guarantee it will be enough to ensure public safety and reduce reoffending?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Whiplash Injury Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The changes today are simple: the compensation tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in whiplash claims are being uplifted by approximately 15% to reflect inflation since the original 2021 figures were set, with a buffer to account for future inflation. These updates are welcome, but also present us with an opportunity to reflect on the broader balance we strike between tackling fraud and protecting the rights of those with legitimate injuries. Whiplash has long been a contentious area of UK personal injury law. We have one of the highest rates of whiplash claims in the world, which has undoubtedly contributed to the rise in motor insurance costs, and whiplash claims have historically added billions of pounds to insurance costs. In my constituency of Chichester, the picture is particularly concerning. According to a study by the Driving Instructors Association, Chichester is now the most accident-prone city in the UK, reporting 232 accidents per 100,000 residents, which is 54% higher than the national average. Even more alarmingly, Chichester has the highest fatality rate of any city, at 5.6 fatal accidents per 100,000 residents. These are not just statistics; they are lives lost and families changed forever. That underlines the real-world impact of road safety and why fair, accessible compensation for those injured on our roads is vital. The 2021 reforms that introduced fixed tariffs and mandatory medical assessments have had an impact, and the number of whiplash claims has declined, but whiplash still accounts for a large share of personal injury claims, and the need to ensure fairness in the system remains. We must remember that behind every claim is a person, often in pain, unable to work, potentially scared to go back out on the roads and navigating an unfamiliar legal system. For them, the process must be simple, fair and accessible. Victims should never be discouraged from seeking rightful compensation because of excessive bureaucracy or overly rigid procedures. That is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently advocated for a balanced approach. During debate on the Civil Liability Act 2018, my colleagues in the other place, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, worked hard to push for stronger safeguards. They argued that the definition of “whiplash injury” should be written into primary legislation to allow full parliamentary scrutiny, and they pushed for compensation to be based on Judicial College guidelines, not simply on fixed tariffs, to preserve judicial discretion and to reflect the severity of injuries. They also urged the previous Government to ensure that any savings made from reducing fraudulent claims are passed on to consumers through lower insurance premiums—a promise that the insurance industry has been slow to honour and which is certainly not reflected in the consumer experience. We also look forward to the findings of the review on whether those savings have been delivered to customers. We continue to support a system that is firm on fraud but fair to victims. Yes, we need robust safeguards, such as mandatory medical assessments and closer co-ordination between regulators, insurers and law enforcement to root out dishonest claims, but that must not come at the expense of those with genuine injuries. It is critical that review mechanisms are in place not just to track inflation, but to assess whether the tariff system continues to serve justice. We believe that the Government must do more to simplify the claims process, particularly for those who do not have or cannot access legal representation. The updated tariff is a necessary correction for inflation, but it must not be seen as the end of the matter. The long-term success of the system depends on three things: maintaining fairness for claimants, preserving judicial discretion where needed and ensuring that promised savings are felt by customers. We must remain focused on people, not just on policy.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The Chichester-based charity My Sisters’ House gave vital wraparound trauma-informed support to 28 women in 2015. Last year, it supported more than 1,700 women. The charity has raised the ongoing issue of cross-allegations, whereby abusers are falsely accusing their victims as a means of keeping the control and the emotional abuse going. What steps is the Home Secretary taking with the Justice Secretary to ensure that the system properly recognises this form of continued abuse and protects victims from being retraumatised?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps her Department is taking with police forces to tackle violence against women and girls.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this important debate. I am particularly pleased to see the Minister in her place, which shows the Government’s recognition that this is a public health issue. Every drug-related death is a preventable tragedy. Every life lost represents not just statistics in a report, but families shattered, futures lost and communities left to pick up the pieces. As a Government and a society, we have a moral obligation to do better. The reality is stark, and it has been laid out very well by Members across the House in the debate: drug-related deaths have reached record highs. They are not just the consequence of addiction but often the result of inadequate support, stigma—as has been mentioned by many hon. Members—and a failure to adopt evidence-based strategies. In 2023, more than 5,000 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales. That is the highest number since records began in 1993 and 11% higher than in the previous year. My local hospital, which is in Chichester, records hundreds of A&E attendances involving drug use. For too long, the response to drug use has been focused on criminalisation rather than treatment. However, as hon. Members have said today, we cannot arrest our way out of the crisis. Those struggling with addiction need access to healthcare, not handcuffs. That means properly funding rehabilitation services, expanding mental health support and ensuring that no one seeking help is turned away due to lack of resources. For me, it is personal. I have witnessed family members self-medicate with drugs when mental health support was unavailable to them. My own dear dad battled with alcohol addiction throughout his adult life. Although it was a related cancer that took him in the end, the addiction had taken him away long before that. In fact, one of the many reasons that I am proud to be a Liberal Democrat is that we pledged, in our general election manifesto, to provide mental health MOTs at key points in our lives when we are most vulnerable to a change in our mental health. I often wonder if my dad would still be here today had he ever had the opportunity to tell a professional that he was struggling. Across the world, we have seen that harm reduction saves lives. I would like to acknowledge the role that hard-working GPs, nurses, community pharmacists and other health professionals play in supporting access to medication and safe consumption spaces, which is taking an evidence-based approach and using it to prevent deaths. In Glasgow, as many Members across the House have mentioned, where drug deaths are at crisis levels, pilots of safer consumption rooms are now under way. I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), as well as other colleagues from across the House, have visited those centres. We should be looking at those models with open minds, rather than relying on outdated ideologies, because the goal is simple: we need to keep people alive for long enough to access treatment and rebuild their lives. As the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, the savings that we find across health and justice far outweigh the investment needed in those centres. We also need a joined-up approach across the country, which lays out the most effective pilot projects so that they can be rolled out to other areas. In its February 2024 report, the Public Accounts Committee identified that there were delays in allocating funding from the 2021 drugs strategy to local authorities, and a continued lack of understanding about what works to prevent people from using drugs. It is unacceptable that there was a 14% underspend in the funding allocated to the strategy in 2023-24, when it is clearly desperately needed across the country to prevent deaths. Of course, prevention must also mean cutting off the supply of dangerous drugs at the source. We need stronger action to stop organised crime groups profiting from misery. That includes tackling county lines operations, which exploit vulnerable young people and push deadly substances into our communities. It is not a partisan issue; we must work together across the House to ensure that harm reduction, prevention and rehabilitation are at the heart of our national strategy. At the end of the day, it is not about politics; it is about people and ensuring that families do not have to endure the heartbreak of losing a loved one to drugs. At its core, it is about saving lives.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing today’s timely and important debate on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. She has been a tireless champion for those harmed by pelvic mesh and for children born with birth defects as a result of sodium valproate. I commend her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate—that is a mouthful and could have been a bit shorter—of which I am also a member. In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that at least 10,000 women in England have been harmed by vaginal mesh implants, some involving the mesh slicing into their bladder, bowels or vaginal wall, leaving them in permanent pain, sometimes unable to walk, work or have sex, leaving their lives changed profoundly. As multiple hon. Members have mentioned, including the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the campaign group Sling the Mesh believes that the true number could be closer to 40,000 women. When Dr Henrietta Hughes agreed to produce this report, she made one thing very clear: this was not to be another review that just gathers dust—this report must lead to action, not just words. We are now a year on and the people affected are still waiting. The Hughes report makes the case plainly: there is a clear need for redress. These women were, in most cases, not failed by a single doctor or a one-off error. They were failed by the system, by healthcare structures, by regulators and by Governments who did not listen when they should have. The redress we need is not about blame but about restorative justice. It should be co-designed with the patients, and it should be distinct from adversarial court proceedings where, as other hon. Members have mentioned, women have to relive their experience and their trauma, time and again. The Hughes report recommended establishing an independent redress agency. The lack of clarity on creating a bespoke redress scheme has left patients in limbo, which is deepening the harm—on that point, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) shared his useful insight and learnings from the infected blood scandal. Several women in my constituency of Chichester have shared their stories with me: stories of being dismissed by clinicians, of medical records being incomplete, inaccessible or not reflecting the true circumstances that these women are in, and of suffering through chronic pain and ill health even after the mesh has been removed. I have met two of those women in person. I met one at her home because she is so profoundly injured and traumatised that she no longer leaves her property for any reason. With no access to social media or the outside world, my constituent had no idea that there were others like her, or that there is a national campaign for justice. She felt alone, embarrassed and broken by her circumstances, so I promised to stand by and with her, and with the thousands of others, up and down the country, who have been failed. I take this opportunity to mention Paula Goss: a national campaigner, and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). Paula was affected by a mesh procedure that was not covered by the original Cumberlege review. The surgeon involved was found guilty of serious misconduct but only suspended for six months. Of the 462 patients harmed at the Spire private hospital and the Southmead hospital, just five were called as witnesses to the General Medical Council. When Paula tried to complain, she was—as many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have noted in this debate—told that she was out of time, and that it was not in the public interest to waive the deadline. How can we call that justice? It is not justice or accountability. Cases like that of Paula, and those raised by my constituents in Chichester, are why we Liberal Democrats believe that the entire set of recommendations in the Cumberlege report must be implemented without further delay. This scandal is not limited to mesh and sodium valproate. The same approach must be extended to other medical scandals, such as Primodos. We cannot continue to treat each crisis as an isolated issue, and need a system-wide approach to patient safety and accountability. That means a duty of candour on public officials. The Liberal Democrats would achieve that by establishing an office of the whistleblower so that safety concerns can be raised without fear or delay. It also means embedding patient voices in the heart of our healthcare system, not as an afterthought but as a fundamental principle. Earlier this year, 100 women secured a financial settlement from mesh manufacturers, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of women who deserve redress. Every single woman affected by this scandal deserves proper compensation, not just those women able to pursue lengthy and difficult legal claims.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  I note the comments by the chair of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice William Davis, who said that both Labour and Conservative Ministers, or their representatives, had known about the plans since 2022 and did not object. While I am disappointed that the Government are only acting reactively now, does the Minister not agree that the shadow Secretary of State has no shame and that it is hard to take his faux outrage seriously when this is just another audition for Tory leader?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important and timely debate, and for giving a passionate and well-informed opening speech. Women’s health has been overlooked for far too long, and today’s discussion is an opportunity to highlight the urgent action needed to address the crisis in women’s health, with International Women’s Day due to be celebrated next week. The Fawcett Society found that nearly two thirds of women in the UK believe that their health concerns are not taken seriously, and more than half have had negative experiences with healthcare professionals. I start this speech feeling very frustrated, because during the debate I have had a message from one of my good friends who was ignored two years ago when she had pain in her leg, and she has just texted to tell me that she will now have to undergo a course of chemotherapy and extremely evasive treatment so that she can retain her ability to walk. My friend is in her early 20s—she was ignored, so I am very cross. This is not just a health issue; it is an economic issue, as has been mentioned. The UK loses 150 million working days every year due to women’s poor health and inadequate support. If we want a healthier, more productive society, we must take action to close the gender gap in healthcare. During a drop-in surgery that I ran in my Chichester constituency, a woman told me that when her daughter started experiencing extremely painful periods, with pain outside of her period, all she could do was cry at the thought of her having to go through the same painful process with healthcare professionals that she had been through herself to get a diagnosis for endometriosis, which took that lady nine years. Gynaecological waiting lists have more than doubled since 2020, which is the biggest increase of any medical speciality. At the end of last year, 755,000 women were waiting for treatment. Behind every number is a woman experiencing chronic pain, worsening mental health and a disrupted daily life. One in four women with a gynaecological condition will end up in A&E because they could not access the care that they needed in time, yet the NHS is failing to prioritise these urgent needs. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been clear: the system needs a complete overhaul so that gynaecological care is given the attention it deserves. An example is St Richard’s hospital in my constituency, which does not have a specific gynaecological ward. That means that women who have gynaecological issues or have received treatment are placed across several other wards. That could negatively impact their treatment as it makes it more difficult for them to receive urgent specialised support in emergencies. Also, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, clinicians do not have to do gynaecological training as part of their mandatory training. Delays in female cancer care are alarming. Between April 2021 and March 2024, 2,980 people waited over 104 days to start treatment on the 62-day urgent suspected breast cancer referral route. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) noted that younger women have a much worse prognosis, due to a lack of breast cancer screening before they are 50. For ovarian cancer, the average wait from GP referral to treatment is 69 days. That is one of the longest delays for any cancer. These prolonged waits are not just unacceptable—they have life-altering consequences. For generations, women’s pain, particularly in maternity care, has been dismissed. That has created a crisis of confidence in NHS maternity services. Several investigations have revealed fundamental flaws in our maternity care and how it is delivered across England. A Care Quality Commission inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% of them were not safe for a woman to give birth in, and studies show that one fifth of all causes of stillbirth are potentially preventable. The CQC has also warned of a normalisation of serious harm in maternity care. That cannot continue. I held a debate on maternity services earlier this week, calling for the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Ockenden report. That is urgently needed to reform the maternity care sector for the better. In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that 10,000 women in England had experienced harm as a result of vaginal mesh implants, although campaigning groups argue that the true figure could actually be closer to 40,000. One woman in my constituency asked me to go to her home because she does not leave it; she is a victim of the mesh scandal and she is totally isolated from her community because of it. I am a member of the First Do No Harm APPG, which builds support and raises awareness of the recommendations of the 2020 Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, and I was really glad to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who talked about the women living in poverty, isolation and pain, who are so often dismissed by the professionals. The review found that those suffering adverse effects from medical treatments including vaginal mesh found a system that was “disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive.” So many of those women are still waiting for compensation. It is a national scandal and a grave injustice. I appreciate all the work that the hon. Member is doing with the APPG. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that medical scandals that have disproportionately harmed women in the past can never be repeated, including through the introduction of a statutory duty of candour for public officials. We believe that every woman deserves high-quality, safe and accessible healthcare. We would try to tackle the maternity care crisis by addressing chronic understaffing, improving retention and modernising outdated facilities. We will continue to press the Government to expand access to screening for conditions such as breast cancer and cervical cancer. We would also make a serious commitment to investing in women’s health research. For too long, the gender gap in medical knowledge has left women without the answers or the treatments that they need. Faster diagnoses and better treatment pathways for women’s cancers and gynaecological conditions must be a priority for this Government, not an afterthought, because this is not just about healthcare; it is about basic dignity, fairness and justice. Women should not have to fight to be heard when it comes to their own bodies. It is time to put women’s health front and centre of the NHS.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the case of Dan and Fiona. I was lucky enough to have them give up their time to share their heartbreaking story with me. They are at the forefront of the fight for an independent inquiry in Leeds. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that he would look at whether there is cause for an investigation but those families are still waiting to find out if that will go ahead. I met with families like Dan and Fiona to ensure that the questions I ask the Minister today are the questions that those families would ask if they had the opportunity. I cannot begin to imagine how exhausting it is to relive the moments that their lives changed forever, over and over again, in the pursuit of better outcomes for the next family. I will include a number of their questions to the Minister in my closing remarks, but I reflect that the families who were able to share their experiences with me were, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, often highly educated and that many had medical backgrounds or academic careers before going through this trauma. Lord Darzi’s report found that black women are almost three times as likely to die in childbirth as white women and that neonatal mortality in the most deprived areas is more than double that in the least deprived. Who speaks up for those families? Who ensures transparency and accountability for those with a fundamental distrust of the medical profession, or those who have learning disabilities, or English as their second language, because those people are not supported in navigating the complex systems that are in place? Negligence claims in obstetrics account for just 13% of the volume of litigation received by NHS Resolution in 2023-24 but cost over £1 billion every year—nearly 60% of the total cost of clinical negligence claims. Beyond financial costs, those failures carry a devastating human toll. If we truly invest in our maternity services, in both professionals and facilities, more than money is saved; lives are saved. In conclusion, I would like to ask the following questions of the Minister. First, the previous Government were supportive of the Ockenden review, and previous health Ministers had made assurances that maternity services were going to get the support they desperately needed. I know the Secretary of State for Health is supportive of the Ockenden review and has met many bereaved parents since the general election. He has assured those parents that fixing maternity is a priority for the Government, and that actions would be outlined publicly before Christmas 2024. He came back shortly after Christmas saying they needed more time. That response is now two months overdue. Can the Minister assure me that those families will hear an update in the near future? Do the Government support all the Ockenden report’s immediate and essential actions arising from the review into the Shrewsbury and Telford trust? How will the Government ensure that all integrated care boards and trusts across the UK implement all the actions? What support will be provided to the trusts to achieve that, and prevent a postcode lottery of maternity care? If those IEAs are implemented, what will be the Government’s measure of success? We currently have no national data regarding preventable deaths. It is the charitable sector that has determined that more than 800 baby deaths a year could have been prevented. One of the IEAs is a long-term plan to secure a safe maternity workforce and improve training. Can we expect to see maternity care professionals, including neonatologists, obstetricians and anaesthetists, included alongside midwifery colleagues in the refresh of the 10-year workforce plan for the NHS? An overriding theme in my conversations with bereaved parents was the CQC’s hesitancy to prosecute. Cases were often supported in the first instance, but families were then informed, just days before the three-year statute of limitations expired, that the CQC would no longer be seeking a prosecution, with the families having no time to appeal that decision. Does the Minister believe that a three-year statute of limitations is appropriate when families dealing with bereavement are often not even considering a case in the first 12 months? Does the Minister have any concerns about the CQC’s ability as a regulator? Or does she agree with the parents that there is a reluctance to prosecute by the leadership of CQC when there have been failures in patient care? Does the Minister support calls from Sands and Tommy’s charities for all triage phonelines to be recorded, as currently they are not? Finally, parents repeatedly reported to me that the bereavement care they received felt like a tick-box exercise, with a lot of focus on the mother and a lack of communication and support for the father, when both have suffered that bereavement. Does the Minister agree that communication could be vastly improved across maternity services in all cases, so that both parents have the opportunity to understand what happened in those most vulnerable hours? I would like to finish by thanking every Member who has come to talk about this important issue. I also thank Donna Ockenden and all who contributed to the creation of the review. My greatest thanks go to all the families who gave up their time to share their stories with me, reminding me that those babies were people, not statistics. They are loved, they are missed, and they deserved better.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for everything he is saying about improved policing on our streets. Something that would massively help my constituents is the reopening of the Chichester custody centre. At the moment, the police have to drive people they arrest all the way over to Worthing, which is a two-hour round trip that takes officers off our streets. Instead, they are stuck in traffic on the A27—something I would not wish on anybody. Does he agree that opening that custody centre would make a huge difference to my constituents?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Government for making time for the House to debate the important topic of Holocaust remembrance ahead of Monday’s Holocaust Memorial Day, a day of solemn remembrance and reflection. On that day, 80 years will have passed since the death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated, yet the memories remain as poignant as ever, largely due to the day that we mark every year. Six million Jewish men, women and children were brutally murdered by the Nazis, and millions of others suffered under Nazi persecution. The Holocaust was a crime of such magnitude that a new word was coined by the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe its horrors: genocide. Today we also remember the victims of more recent genocides, including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur. Those atrocities are a stark reminder that hatred and intolerance, if left unchecked, can have devastating consequences, inflicting terror and eradicating entire communities. Such tragic events serve as stark reminders that we, as a global community, have not yet fully learned the lessons of the past, and the promise of “Never again” is not one that we are doing a good job of upholding. We cannot stand by while radicalisation and hatred flame up around us, when 245,000 survivors of the Holocaust are still alive today. It has not even been a lifetime since the world promised justice at the Nuremberg trials, and promised “Never again”, yet antisemitism is rising once more here in the UK and around the world. Extremist voices are fuelling division and fear, and exploiting tensions to spread further hatred, disinformation and cultural amnesia. We must remain vigilant, for one lesson of the Holocaust is that silence is never an option. In my constituency of Chichester we are proud to have a community that is committed to remembrance and education. Over the past decade, Chichester Marks Holocaust Memorial Day has organised meaningful events, from ceremonies held in local assembly rooms to educational films and talks for our schoolchildren, ensuring that future generations understand the impact of the Holocaust and the importance of standing up against prejudice and intolerance. This year, Chichester festival theatre will host “The Last Train to Tomorrow”, an opera that tells the story of the Kindertransport, a rescue effort that brought 10,000 Jewish children to safety here in the UK. Such stories remind us of our shared humanity, and the power of compassion in the face of unimaginable darkness. I praise the chair of Chichester Marks Holocaust Memorial Day, Councillor Clare Apel, whose dedication has been instrumental in making these events happen over the past decade. Her personal connection to the Holocaust, having lost 50 members of her family, serves as a poignant reminder of why we should never forget. On Monday, a new blue plaque will be unveiled as part of the Selsey heritage trail, to commemorate the part that Selsey played in helping the Kindertransport children who came to the UK. Plans are under way to establish a permanent memorial site in Chichester to honour the victims and educate generations to come. That initiative stands as a testament to our collective commitment to ensure that “Never again” is not just a phrase but a call to action. The words “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it” are inscribed at the memorial site at Auschwitz, so today we honour the survivors, the victims and those who continue to bear witness. It is our collective responsibility to carry forward their legacy, challenge hatred wherever we see it, and build a future based on understanding and respect for all.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Tackling Stalking · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House today. I am sure she will join me in thanking a local charity, My Sisters’ House, which supports women in Chichester and Bognor specifically with relationship breakdown stalking, among other things. As its staff said to me when I spoke to them, anything that puts the rights of victims above the rights of abusers is a positive step in the right direction. The Minister cites the great example of Cheshire constabulary, which is setting a leading standard in its approach to the protection and welfare of victims. She also recognised that we need to see all forces taking that sort of action. However, with each police force acting independently and priorities being set by police and crime commissioners, how will she ensure that victims do not experience a postcode lottery in the support they receive?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Antisocial Behaviour: Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  Antisocial behaviour and crime on our high streets are best tackled with a visible police presence, but police officers in my constituency are spending a four-hour round trip taking those they are arresting to Worthing custody centre when we have a perfectly fit-for-purpose custody centre in Chichester. Does the Home Secretary agree that opening Chichester custody centre would reduce the time that police officers spend sitting in traffic and get them back on our streets?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Courts: Victims’ Experience · Hansard source

  More

  To ensure that victims see justice, criminal cases need to be heard in a timely manner, which relies on a number of courts being in place to be able to hear them. The future of Chichester Crown court, which is the only Crown court in west Sussex, has been under threat for nearly a decade. Local campaigners fought to save that provision, leading to its reopening to clear the backlog, but its future remains uncertain. Will the Minister meet me to ensure the future of Chichester Crown court?