Maternity Commissioner

Debate between Tony Vaughan and Jess Brown-Fuller

Monday 20th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point about the disparity in the guidance. If there is someone at the top of an NHS trust who is passionate about maternity care, that is more likely to trickle down, but that is not the same in every trust, and therefore we can end up with a postcode lottery. In Chichester, mothers going to give birth would have a totally different experience if they went to Chichester, Guildford or Portsmouth because they are three totally different trusts with totally different guidance and rules about when mothers should present or the sort of treatment they should get at hospital. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that introducing a maternity commissioner would give us strategic oversight across the country of the experiences that mothers should expect to have?

[Tony Vaughan]

Certainly, the petition is clear that without expert, national-level oversight, there is no way of turning that thicket of different guidance and frameworks into a coherent, enforceable standard of care. Whatever structural change the Government put forward has to do that job. I spoke to my constituent Jo Page earlier, and she told me that there are people in Folkestone and Hythe who are going to Tunbridge Wells to access maternity services because of their concerns about the local standards of care. Obviously, that has to be fundamentally addressed.

The powerful evidence from the various maternity investigations that we have seen show that when everyone is responsible, nobody is accountable. Appointing a maternity commissioner could well mean that there is somebody with whom the buck stops—a dedicated expert responsible for turning the 750 recommendations, or the 87 guidance documents, into a single national maternity strategy and ensuring that it is implemented. That is not the only way that that could be done; Baroness Amos will shortly publish her report on the national maternity and neonatal investigations in NHS services. The petitioners strongly believe that her report should commit to a maternity commissioner and a maternity strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government currently view that proposal. I also ask her to commit to providing an update on which of the previous recommendations committed to may be taken forward.

In conclusion, the Government’s recent decision to introduce a women’s health strategy is hugely welcome and is an important acceptance that women’s health has been neglected for far too long. The petitioners strongly believe that it would make a real difference to women giving birth if that strategy encompassed a maternity commissioner with the authority, expertise and focus to end the postcode lottery in maternity care and break the cycle of avoidable harm once and for all.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Debate between Tony Vaughan and Jess Brown-Fuller

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is really important to put that on record as something that also needs to be addressed, and all of those elements that contribute to exacerbating backlogs and professionals walking away from their service.

Types of and methods for presenting evidence have developed massively with new technology, but our courts have somehow served as time capsules and not kept up with innovation. The growing backlog in our criminal courts is also directly exacerbating the crisis of prison overcrowding. Remand populations continue to rise, now accounting for over one fifth of the entire prison population. That is not sustainable and nor is it just. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam made a very valid point that while people on remand are in prison awaiting trial, they are not having the rehabilitative programmes that could prevent them from reoffending.

We need to be clear where the fault for this lies. Years of poor governance have led to chronic under-investment in and neglect of our nation’s courts and justice infrastructure. The fact that one of the Labour Government’s first actions last year was to implement an emergency early release scheme to create space in our prisons is something that those on the Conservative Benches should apologise for. They ignored the crisis for far too long and left it for the incoming Government to clear up. It was under them that the backlog ballooned, that busy Crown courts such as the one in my constituency of Chichester were closed, and that staff shortages persisted.

The hole that our justice system is in is a deep and worrying one. It is therefore right that an independent, innovative and external review into the system by the well-respected Brian Leveson was commissioned. The first half of the report has provided some interesting ideas to address many of the issues outlined, and it will certainly create debate on what can be done. Responding to the headline suggestions—I am not going to cover all 45—about the Crown court bench division and reductions in trial by jury, the Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by any impingement on the right of individuals to face trial by jury in a Crown court. That right is a cornerstone of the judicial process which, as has been set out in a number of reports, has been proven to be non-discriminatory and multiracial. That diversity cannot be guaranteed if trials are increasingly presided over by judges alone.

The Government’s efforts to implement the necessary reforms to the courts system to address the untenable backlog should be centred on the principle of ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and without discrimination. The removal of the right of individuals to trial by jury would undermine that aim, reducing the likelihood of both victims and defendants receiving a fair hearing, and therefore should be firmly opposed. As many Members acknowledged, including the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), there is no robust argument that the removal of trial by jury would make a significant difference to the backlog. I wait to be convinced, if the Government decide to take that recommendation on board. That is not to say that the issues surrounding the processes of trial by jury should not be addressed.

As outlined in the Leveson report, the increasing length and complexity of trials is having a serious financial and mental impact on jurors. However, that must not be utilised as an argument to undermine the right to a fair trial. Instead, jurors must receive financial support and appropriate wellbeing services throughout proceedings. I have been contacted by many constituents who were keen to play their part in the justice system and do their jury service, but the financial burden, especially for those who were self-employed, had a huge impact on their livelihoods.

Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed Crown court bench division on the workload of magistrates who would be drawn in to operate those courts. Attempts to mitigate the severe backlog in the Crown courts that exacerbate the backlog in the magistrates courts are clearly an undesirable outcome. The Magistrates Association states that implementing the recommendations would require an increase in the number of magistrates required. The creation of an intermediate court would therefore jeopardise magistrates’ current ability to deliver swift justice. That is particularly concerning for survivors of domestic abuse who already face distressing delays.

[Tony Vaughan]

As the hon. Lady seems to oppose a lot of the meat of the reforms, is there one that she can support to reduce the pressures on the system? That is a fundamental task that we all agree needs to be addressed.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I have picked out the main recommendations in the report that I cannot agree with. There are 45 recommendations in the Leveson report and some of them could go some way, but removing the key pillar of our justice system by removing the right to trial by jury is something that I cannot support.