Fleur Anderson
MP for Putney · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and a delight to be called first. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this important debate.”
“Hundreds of families have moved out and moved back, and they have just been told that they will all have to move out again in a rota system, all while fighting for remediation.”
“Although I recognise that developers have obligations under the developer remediation contract, my constituents are understandably asking what more can be done by the unit, by Ministers and by the Building Safety Regulator when progress stalls for different reasons.”
“The Bill will place stronger legal duties on landlords and freeholders to remediate unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects within clear timeframes. That is very welcome.”
“In other cases, residents are waiting for final fire risk assessments, EWS1 forms, remediation plans, contractor appointments, updated certifications, smoke extraction systems or the installation of cavity barriers. In all those cases, it is the people in the building who have to chase things up.”
“There are long delays, a lack of clear guidance and a lack of connection between the different bodies involved, as I will demonstrate. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to several developments that are covered by the developer remediation contract with major developers such as Barratt Redrow and Taylor Wimpey.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Fleur Anderson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“We welcome devolution in London, but the ability of local councils like mine in Wandsworth to tackle growth could be undermined by the changes proposed in the fair funding review. In Wandsworth, 26% of residents and 33% of children live in poverty after housing costs. Will the Minister consider making adjustments to the proposed funding formula to properly account for housing and children’s services and ensure that no council is worse off as a result of the review?”
“Does the Home Secretary agree that it is vital that we continue to send a united message that we support the Jewish community and their right to live and worship in safety, and that we all have a role—here in this place, and in workplaces, schools and streets across this country—in taking action against this?”
“I share with Members the joy at the hostages being released today, and the sorrow at the loss of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and I send my condolences to their families. I join the Home Secretary in condemning this attack and condemning antisemitism and racism. I met our local rabbi last week to share my solidarity, and I am so pleased that the congregation have received so many messages of support from across the community and other faith groups—the mosque, churches and other groups—and that there is real support from the local police, for which they are very grateful.”
“There are too few of those deaths in each trust to rely on the trust to take the action; it has to be done at a national level. In fact, it has to be done across every nation—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England—otherwise there will be inconsistencies as there already are between the different nations. Will the Minister work with counterparts across the UK to ensure that no nation falls behind? Will the Minister meet Sherena and Jack to discuss how to improve maternity care and look at the findings they have? We owe it to Maia. We owe it to every family shattered by preventable baby loss to demand accountability, enforce standards and ensure that no parent is ever told that everything is fine when it is not.”
“I have also talked to the chief nurse for the South West London integrated care board, who highlighted issues of midwife retention and recruitment and, in particular, maternity triage, which needs reform with a universal standard that would ensure consistency of safety and access—those early warning systems that failed Maia and are failing others. Just as we have a mental health investment standard, we should consider a similar maternity services standard as well. I turn to the demands for change. The “Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle” published by NHS England in June 2023 outlines three key elements for foetal growth monitoring, but they are not consistently adopted and then monitored to ensure that they are implemented.”
“The issue is that many hospitals use a global growth monitoring system that under-detects small babies in high-income countries like the UK because it uses data from across the world. Safer UK-developed systems based on NHS data do exist and are used by many units, but Maia was failed by outdated growth charts still in use at Kingston and St George’s and at many other hospitals. A key part of the system is those growth charts. Donald Peebles, NHS England’s clinical director for maternity, has confirmed that a national safety alert will soon advise trusts to stop using these intergrowth charts, but is there a system to track which hospitals still use them, and how can we update foetal growth monitoring systems urgently?”
“Babies with growth issues like Maia are eight times more likely to die, and it was Kingston’s foetal growth monitoring system that failed her. It diverged from national standards and, despite early warnings, many unsafe practices like that remain. The Government’s own maternity and neonatal safety investigation into Maia’s death made nine recommendations, yet risks still persist and are not listened to. Sherena and Jack often feel that they are not being listened to, but bereaved parents need to be heard because by listening to them, we can identify those areas that need to change. It is that culture and the regulation and standards that all need to work together to see real change. Freedom of information requests by Sherena and Jack have revealed that at least 27 trusts cannot properly identify babies with growth issues.”
“This week breaks that silence, honours lives cut short and stands with families who carry their babies’ memory every day. Like other Members, I pay tribute to charities like Sands, Tommy’s and the Miscarriage Association. Their work must be supported and recognised. I speak with a heavy heart to share the story of Maia Devlin Corfield, a beautiful baby girl who should be here today. Her parents Sherena and Jack came to my advice surgery to tell me about Maia’s stillbirth at Kingston hospital. Though Sherena’s pregnancy was low risk, Maia showed signs of growth restriction. Staff reassured Sherena but failed to act. Maia was born still on 29 November 2024. The autopsy showed she was healthy, but died due to a placental condition that halted her growth and breathing.”
“I welcome this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), and the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for bringing to the House, during Baby Loss Awareness Week, this debate on a grief that touches thousands, who often grieve in silence. I will use this debate to call for a UK-wide perinatal death reduction programme, and will talk about foetal growth restriction monitoring. I am really glad that the Secretary of State for Health is in the Chamber; that shows his commitment. This debate is well timed to inform the rapid review of maternity and neonatal safety in England. For many, baby loss is invisible and misunderstood.”
“The Minister should urge the NHS to collect data to establish how many people have received these implants and how many have had them removed, and to proactively contact everyone affected through their GPs to give them advice. The Government should also conduct a review into the risks associated with PIP breast implants. I welcome the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee has begun an inquiry into this matter. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the outcomes of that inquiry—I am sure she will. I would welcome the Minister meeting me and PIP campaigners—I am sure that she will find Jan as inspiring and informative as I have—to discuss what actions can be taken to right this injustice and improve the health of thousands of women.”
“There is inadequate pre-market oversight, excessive commercial secrecy, under-researched women’s health impacts, regulatory capture, financial conflicts and poor post-market surveillance. Who are the women affected? Where are they? What is happening to them? Patient compensation mechanisms are weak, and as I have said, women are routinely not taken seriously when they raise these issues. The key asks from the PIP campaigners are for the Minister to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has absolutely failed them in this instance, and the NHS to recognise and publicise the risks associated with PIP breast implants. If there is a link between breast implants and health issues, the data should be easy to find.”
“The Minister agreed to produce implant cards with more information about the risks of having an implant put in, but did not agree to tell all the affected women what might be happening in their own bodies and why they were experiencing so many health issues—that it might be because of breast implants—or to remove them and solve the issue. The PIP scandal is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader, systemic failure in the regulation of medical devices. Both the UK and global systems have long-standing structural weaknesses that create recurring cycles. That is why I am glad that this debate has been secured and the matter brought to the attention of the Minister.”
“Many of the private healthcare providers that implanted those breast implants declared themselves bankrupt but then restarted, in the same premises under a similar name. There is also a data gap, because there is no good register of who received these implants. That is also the case with many other non-cosmetic treatments. Who is receiving these treatments and who is doing them? We need to know. In 2023, I secured a debate in the House to discuss this matter, but I felt that it was pushed aside by the responding Minister.”
“In 2011, following the death of a woman from the rare cancer, the French Government recommended that 30,000 women in France seek the removal of their breast implants, and removals were carried out. A criminal trial was held, and the founder of PIP was sent to prison for four years. In 2022, my constituent Jan came to talk to me about the health issues that she had faced as a result of these implants. She said that doctors were not listening to her. That is a pattern for both non-cosmetic and cosmetic treatments: going to the doctor, being told, “You’re an older woman; it’s menopause”—for younger women it might be ME or something else—and being written off. That is why we are discussing this matter today: for a long time women with these issues have not been listened to. There is an accountability gap.”
“If we do not tackle one and get the regulation right for one side of it, we will not get it right for both sides, and they are really important. The company Poly Implant Prothèse, or PIP, was founded in France. It began distributing breast implants made from non-medical silicone, and it was later found that what had been put into the breast implants was basically mattress filler. The implants were far more likely to rupture and lead to long-term health conditions: they were found to have a 500% higher risk of rupturing or leaking and a direct link to a rare form of cancer. In 2010, PIP pre-emptively liquidated, but between 2001 and 2010, 400,000 people globally and 47,000 people in the UK received PIP breast implants. Many of those in the UK probably received them through implant surgery in another country.”
“She was one of those surgery appointments where someone bursts into the room. She had so much to say that I had to encourage her to take a moment to sit down. She had been campaigning for a very long time on the Poly Implant Prothèse breast implant scandal, something that I have been raising ever since on behalf of Jan, who has been so affected by this personally, and on behalf of all the women across the UK. Up to 47,000 women have been affected by the scandal. It has really opened up to me the dreadful issues of surgical and non-surgical cosmetic treatments that need to be addressed. I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove about how this is about cosmetic and non-cosmetic surgery.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Desmond. I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing it. I agree with much of what he said, especially the issues about negative body image and the harm being done. I welcome the Government action that was announced recently. The announcement on 5 August of the forthcoming consultation and crackdown on unsafe cosmetic procedures is very welcome. The last Government did not do enough in this area, despite my pushing on one particular area of it, so I am glad that this Government are taking action. I look forward to hearing more about those actions from the Minister. I am here because in 2022 my constituent, Jan Spivey, came to my surgery with a lot to say.”
“Hammersmith bridge closed six years, four months and 22 days ago, cutting off the bus routes and causing congestion in Putney. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), holding the first Hammersmith bridge taskforce meeting. When will the next one be held?”
“I pay tribute to the clergy and aid workers at the Catholic Holy Family church in Gaza, who are staying put to help the population despite the evacuation orders. I just met with the Palestine director of the UN World Food Programme, who says that it has the capacity to feed all of the population, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is not meeting the needs of the population, and it is too unsafe to collect aid. Their main point, though, is about law and order. Is the technical committee going to come into place and enforce the law and order that is needed for access to humanitarian aid? I would also like to know whether this was raised by Prime Minister this morning at the meeting with President Herzog.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for calling this debate, rightly highlighting the siege that is stopping food, water, hygiene, shelter and medical aid getting into Gaza, putting a spotlight on the aid agencies being blocked, and the role that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is playing, or not playing, in getting aid to where it is needed. It is very important because this is the month of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly. I ask the Minister if that will be raised by our UK Ministers at the General Assembly, to make sure that the issue of humanitarian aid access is a key part of our interventions in New York?”
“On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I omitted earlier to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been on two trips to Palestine: one with Medical Aid for Palestinians and one with Yachad. I wanted to make that clear and set the record straight.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for bringing this matter before the House. I am also grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing the motion to be debated, and to the hon. Member for North Dorset for his careful explanation of the procedure involved. I thank everyone who has worked together to enable this motion to come before this House, with nothing but a desire to support the Omagh inquiry. The Government are very supportive of the motion. Should it be agreed, the Government will await the work of the Committee of Privileges with interest. Question put and agreed to.”
“I take every opportunity to promote investment into Northern Ireland, and our tech companies in particular. I recently spoke at the Big Data conference in New York and at London Tech Week to highlight our cutting-edge companies in Northern Ireland. I held a roundtable with tech business leaders and visited Catagen in Belfast just last week to talk about the industrial strategy and the ways that we can boost investment and growth.”
“I welcome the opportunity to promote Northern Ireland’s tech companies here in the Chamber today. More than 1,500 international companies have set up operations in Northern Ireland. They tell me that this is due to the Government support, the strong working between the Government and the Executive, the dual market access, the unique concentration of tech companies, the academic support from Ulster University and Queen’s University and, above all, the people. Northern Ireland has a workforce with industry-ready skills and innovation in their DNA.”
“We know that violence against women and girls is an epidemic, and online safety is an important part of that. Coupled with Northern Ireland being an AI superpower, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there are opportunities for AI companies, many of which I have met, to work on the tech to ensure that perpetrators are caught, that justice is done and that we ensure that online safety is taken extremely seriously. The work that will be done in the industrial strategy to promote AI work—with the new AI growth zones, for example—can ensure that we lock that in.”
“The industrial strategy is good news for Northern Ireland. It is a bold long-term plan to give businesses and investors the certainty they need to thrive. The eight sectors of the strategy map well with Northern Ireland’s world-class strengths, including advanced manufacturing, cyber, defence, the creative industries, life sciences and financial services. For each of those, there is increased UK-wide funding opportunities and, in Northern Ireland, specific funds on cyber-security, advanced manufacturing and the £30 million of that all-important R&D investment for innovation.”
“Belfast is already at the heart of the UK’s industrial strategy on cyber and tech and is leading the world. The Government have a bold vision to be, by 2035, one of the top three places in the world to invest, create and scale up a tech business. Belfast and the growth and city deals, which are at the heart of that, is an important part. I have met businesses across Belfast and Northern Ireland that are leading on this, and it is exciting to see.”
“The Secretary of State has already answered the question on the roads. It is important that we look at and address all parts of the infrastructure that are holding Northern Ireland back in any way.”
“Many different types of business—not only public sector broadcasters, but tech companies, fintech, cyber-security and advanced manufacturing, such as Catagen, which I met last week—are all part of the strong ecosystem in Northern Ireland. The fact that broadcasters can talk to advanced manufacturers which can talk to others makes Northern Ireland such a fantastic place to invest in, and I am glad that that is being highlighted in the House of Commons today.”
“That is why the Secretary of State has been extolling and making clear how important the SPS agreement is. We are not taking our foot off the pedal in any way towards that. It is not only agri-science, but life sciences that are leading the way for Northern Ireland and the UK and across the world. We want to ensure that we continue to support them in every way we can.”
“While our aim is to normalise all security arrangements as soon as it is safe to do so, for the moment these provisions remain necessary to safeguard the administration of justice.”
“That is why this Government have increased funding to £37.8 million for the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s additional security fund, and confirmed £8 million for the executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. In March, the Government confirmed £20.4 million for justice transformation measures, which was agreed by the public service transformation board and undertaken by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee that the Secretary of State did not take this decision lightly, and that all the relevant information was considered. I am sure that I can count on the support of Members across the Committee.”
“The normalisation of the justice and security arrangements in Northern Ireland, when it is safe to do so and compatible with the interests of justice, is a priority of this Government. Therefore, without prejudging any future consultation, the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from these provisions, when the time is right. We are not taking this for granted; however, at this time, further progress on the Northern Ireland security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trial provisions are no longer required. The Government will of course continue to work strategically with security partners to tackle the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism.”
“In the period since the last extension of these provisions, the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism was severe, until being lowered to substantial in March 2024, where it has remained. Regrettably, the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in some Northern Ireland communities necessitates the extension of these provisions. I am very aware that this will be the ninth extension of these non-jury trial provisions, which were designed to be temporary, but the safety of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount, and the administration of justice cannot risk being impaired in our society—our society that has come so far since the dark days of the troubled past.”
“Those indicators included several indices of the current levels of paramilitary activity and intimidation in Northern Ireland. In conjunction with the consultation responses, the Secretary of State considered those indicators and determined that they demonstrate that it would not be appropriate to remove the non-jury trial provisions at this time. The Secretary of State and I are aware of the unease that some may feel about the extension of these measures, but I thank those who have worked courageously over the years to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe. From those efforts, real progress has been made since the worst days of the troubles to reduce the threat posed by paramilitarism. However, that threat has not been sufficiently reduced.”
“That was published on 6 May, the day this draft order was laid before the House. As well as the public consultation, the Secretary of State’s decision has been informed by the indicators identified by the working group on non-jury trials in 2022. That group was established following recommendations by the former independent reviewer of the Justice and Security Act, and was composed of representatives from the Public Prosecution Service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Court service, the Bar, the Law Society and other independent organisations. The group developed a set of indicators to assist the Secretary of State in determining whether these non-jury trial provisions remain necessary in Northern Ireland.”
“However, as pointed out by some responses in favour of the extension, the threshold for the use of those provisions is set much higher than under the 2007 Act, which makes it unsuited to deal with the unique challenges associated with Northern Ireland, as it would expose jurors to an unacceptable level of risk of intimidation and potentially undermine the administration of justice. In addition, while the 2003 Act includes provision for a non-jury trial where there is jury tampering, it does not mitigate against the risk of juror bias, which the consultation responses have demonstrated to be an ongoing risk in Northern Ireland. The full details of those responses to the consultation were published in the Government’s consultation response document, which can be found on the Northern Ireland Office web pages on gov.uk.”
“The responses in favour typically cited the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in Northern Ireland communities, meaning that victims and witnesses fear participating in the criminal justice system, and that there is a continued risk of jury intimidation. Some of the responses against extending the provisions suggested that the alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could instead be relied upon in Northern Ireland.”
“However, the non-jury trial provisions, in the small proportion of cases in which they are exercised, not only protect potential jurors from the threat of intimidation but often offer certain defendants protection from the possibility of a hostile or fearful jury. I further reassure the Committee that the Government ran a 12-week public consultation from 9 December 2024 to 3 March 2025. The public consultation received 17 responses: nine were in favour of extending the NJT provisions for a further two years, three were opposed to extending the provisions for a further two years, and five neither clearly supported nor objected to extending the provisions.”
“The Secretary of State has determined, following a 12-week public consultation and consideration of the indicators previously identified by the working group on non-jury trials, as well as wider information about the security situation in Northern Ireland, that these non-jury trial provisions continue to be necessary to uphold the fair and effective administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I reassure the Committee that, in Northern Ireland today, there is a strong presumption of a jury trial in all criminal cases. In 2024, of all Crown court cases in Northern Ireland, only 0.7% were conducted without a jury—that is 10 out of 1,501 cases.”
“The non-jury trial provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which apply only in Northern Ireland, provide for non-jury trial in exceptional circumstances where certain conditions are met that create a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired were the trial to be conducted by a jury. The decision to proceed with a non-jury trial is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, following a request from the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service. In a non-jury trial, a single judge sits alone to hear the case and must give the reasons for any conviction. Any person convicted before a non-jury trial has a right of appeal on either sentencing or conviction, without leave.”
“I beg to move, That this Committee has considered the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members who have come this evening to discuss this important piece of legislation, which was laid before the House on 6 May 2025. I also thank all those who work towards peace, security and justice in Northern Ireland. The draft order extends provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 that enable criminal trials to continue to be conducted without a jury in Northern Ireland where certain conditions are met, for a further two-year period until 31 July 2027. Otherwise, the provisions would expire on 31 July this year.”
“It is very much about scoping: there is no prejudgment about whether there will be a formal process; they will just consider it. The work to appoint that person is ongoing.”
“I thank Members for those contributions, which I will go through one by one. The independent expert is currently being recruited. The UK Government and the Government of Ireland have agreed to appoint that expert, who will operate within the existing Independent Reporting Commission framework and be asked to undertake a scoping exercise through a broad programme of engagement to consider whether there are barriers to paramilitary disbandment that may need to be addressed through a formal process. The expert will test levels of public support for any process that might be established to deal with those issues, and produce a final report within 12 months of starting that sets out what they have heard through their engagement and their assessment of whether a formal process would be useful.”
“The Northern Ireland justice system is lacking a sentencing council, as the hon. Member for South Antrim highlighted. The justice system is devolved, as he will know very well, and the establishment of the sentencing council is a decision for the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional public service transformation funding, which I hope will be a part of the whole story of addressing the need to speed up the criminal justice system and make the other changes needed.”
“However, that issue is pertinent and should be part of the conversation for the next two years. On the oversight of Northern Ireland’s non-jury trial system, in the course of the renewal debate in 2017, when Parliament agreed to extend the non-jury trial provisions, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Chloe Smith, committed to keep the provisions under regular independent review by requesting that the independent reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 include non-jury trials in their annual report. Recommendations made since then by the independent reviewer have led to more efficient engagement between the PSNI and the PPS, a reduction in processing times and improvements to the administration of the process. Again, this is a good discussion to continue with.”
“I commend the PSNI on the progress that it has made to address journalist safety in Northern Ireland directly, including the appointment of journalist safety officers. We should support those measures and everything done to support journalists and their safety. On the points made by the hon. Member for South Antrim, there are four conditions for allowing a non-jury trial. They are broad and cover a broad range of circumstances. However, the additional test of the risk to the administration of justice must also be met before the Director of Public Prosecutions grants a non-jury trial certificate. Since the provisions have been in place, the Director of Public Prosecutions has shown that he applies that statutory test stringently. As I said, certificates were not granted in five cases in 2024.”
“Some stated that non-jury trials are now treated as normal, with insufficient consideration given to challenging established narratives, and noted that there is a lack of evidence of jury intimidation due to the long-term existence of non-jury trial powers. Like all Members present, we want to move to jury trials for all. However, in a small number of circumstances, we have decided to continue non-jury trials. We agree with all of those who responded to the consultation to say that they want to move away from that as soon as possible. That is why we will be looking at this issue for the next two-year period, if that is agreed to today. I agree that the threatening and intimidation of journalists is a very serious issue for our democracy and for justice, and is therefore pertinent to our discussion today.”
“The process is now up to talking with potential candidates. We want the expert to be in place as soon as possible. I will not give a precise date, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. In 2023, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued 20 certificates for non-jury trials and refused three, and, in 2024, issued 17 and refused five, in line with the four conditions. I can provide further information on what the reasons were. Respondents to the consultation who opposed the extension of the provisions felt that Northern Ireland should move towards normalisation of the criminal justice system by relying on alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”
“This morning, I was at London Tech Week, meeting with Irish and Northern Irish companies and businesses, and others who want to invest in Northern Ireland as a special hub of tech. Those kinds of conversations are a good counter, and show the progress being made across Northern Ireland. Once again, I thank all those who contribute towards peace and security in Northern Ireland, as we have all done today. Question put and agreed to.”