There has been a lot of hysteria surrounding this week’s ruling by the High Court that Parliament needs formally to ratify the Government’s intention to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in order to start the process of the UK leaving the EU. Is this an attempt by partisan judges to undermine the Brexiteers?

Conversely does the attack by Brexiteers on the judges who took that decision represent an attack on the independence of our judiciary? How very dare the Government to try to tell our independent judges what to do?

Does this mean that Brexit will now be severely delayed, the resulting negotiations be compromised or not happen altogether?

For those remainers welcoming the High Court ruling who previously complained about the uncertainty caused to the markets by the long drawn out referendum debate and confusion over what happens next, won’t this new uncertainty and probable delay spin the damage out even longer?

For my part I can’t get too agitated. I still have no doubt that Brexit will happen and there need not be any delay to the March 2017 deadline for triggering the process that Theresa May has set out. Arguments about whether it will be a hard, soft or squidgy Brexit are not part of this ruling. The judges have made clear simply that the process of triggering Article 50 should be taken by Parliament and is not the preserve of the Prime Minister and the Executive. As we entered the European Community as a result of a Parliamentary Act it is not unreasonable that the process of leaving it should be initiated by a further Parliamentary Act, although in 1972 it had not been affirmed by a referendum.

So if that is what the judges say then let’s get on with it. At least it is British judges saying it and not completely unaccountable ones in the European Court. And frankly if we do have greater confidence in the independence and integrity of the British legal system then we should not challenge the credentials of our judges making these decisions. The attacks on individual judges are disgraceful, whatever we think of their judgements, and it is extraordinary that the Justice Secretary has not reinforced this point publicly and robustly.

I acknowledge that some contend that the High Court judgement is defective as it conflicts with judgements made in 2008 over calls for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

There are some more weighty outstanding constitutional matters to be debated, but they can wait. As for now there is also some dispute as to whether a simple Parliamentary vote of both Houses would suffice. So let’s head off any further grounds for vacillation.

Let’s drop the attempt to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and thereby cause further delay. Instead, next week the Government should introduce a simple one page Bill which empowers the Government to trigger Article 50.

As with other emergency legislation around terrorism for example its scrutiny could be expedited through both Houses and the March timetable could remain intact and some degree of certainty restored. In addition to the fact that the largest number of voters ever to have voted for an issue in the UK on June 23rd voted us to leave the EU, we now know that in 421 of 574 English and Welsh constituencies there was also a clear majority to leave. Scotland and Northern Ireland overall voted to stay but with varying results across constituencies.

Any MP who voted to hold the Referendum in the first place must now be duty bound to support its decision and put it into effect by voting for a Bill to trigger Article 50. When I campaigned to Leave I made it absolutely clear that I would respect a Remain vote and work to make our continued membership of the EU a success. End of.

The Government was elected on a manifesto to hold a referendum and it honoured that commitment. In the back of the controversial £9.3m taxpayer funded booklet sent to every home in the country the Government clearly stated ‘This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.’ Government MPs should be whipped to vote for whatever it now takes to trigger article 50 and if the courts have ruled that it has to be by Parliamentary authority then let’s leave no room for misinterpretation by passing a full blown Act.

Those arguing that the Referendum was ‘advisory’ not ‘mandatory’ are disingenuous. We use the vehicle of a Referendum very rarely, only twice nationally in the last 50 years. It is because Parliament deems that an issue is of such constitutional magnitude that the decision needs to be taken separately and explicitly by the people. In this case there were no strong arguments accepted for turnout thresholds or the like before the result. Indeed the turnout was rather higher than that which elected the Government at the last General Election. Only subsequent to the result have some vociferous remainers questioned the maths, the demographics and most disgracefully the intellectual capability of the majority voting to leave. When the people have spoken as they have, the servants of the people, us the MPs, have a duty to get on with it.

If there are those in the unelected Lords who want to frustrate the will of the electorate who cannot elect or unelect them, then clearly the next referendum needs to be on the future of that end of Parliament. If they are numerous enough to challenge the will of the people and the elected House of Commons and block the Bill then that is the only circumstance in which the Prime Minister will probably have to call a general election. But hopefully it will not come to that and the damage that further delay could bring can be averted.

Many of those hailing this ruling as a great triumph for democracy and a way of influencing hard/soft Brexit or whatever, whilst still claiming the result of the Referendum must be respected, are being the most disingenuous. They see this as a way of putting obstacles in the way of Brexit, sowing doubts that it can ever be achieved, and by making out that it is all too complicated and spinning it out for as long as possible hope that it will run into the sands and never happen. They must be exposed and challenged at all costs.

To those who claim that Parliament must have ample opportunity to debate Brexit we have spoken about little else for the last six months. Wherever you go Brexit crops up on the agenda. When negotiations start, no doubt all sorts of Brexit issues will be tabled for further debate in Parliament. We will spend a great deal of time debating and voting on the Great Repeal Bill and ultimately Parliament may even be faced with choices on certain Leave options at the end of the negotiation process.

But you cannot negotiate by committee, least of all with 27 other players looking you in the eye across the negotiating table. The Government has to be free to play its hand to secure the best deal for Britain outside of the EU without constantly having to look over its shoulder and revealing its cards. By all means take advice from Parliament, from experts and indeed high ranking lawyers, but it is down to Government and the top team appointed to do the deal. Whilst that is a respectable mantra which ministers have blithely trotted out in recent months it would help their case if the Prime Minster did give further details about the likely structure of negotiations, who is doing what and what happens next. I am sure markets and constituents alike, from which ever side of the argument, would appreciate that.

So let’s be clear this ruling is purely about triggering the process of Brexit not what the outcome should look like. Let’s thank the judges for making that clear, not waste any more taxpayers’ money on challenges in the courts, pass a Bill immediately that puts it beyond doubt and get on with the tricky negotiating stuff ahead which results in us leaving the EU. I am sure that is what my constituents want and that is what I am ready and willing to support.

Along with the Director General of The Royal British Legion and over 80 other Members of Parliament, I raced against the clock on an exercise bike to raise money for The Royal British Legion’s annual Poppy Appeal.

The 12 hour bike ride was held from 08:00 to 20:00 in Portcullis House, Parliament and aimed to raise money for the Legion’s national Poppy Appeal.

The bike ride was organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust (IPT) in association with The Royal British Legion and follows on from the successful bike ride held in 2015 (where 77 MPs and Peers cycled a total of 128.8 miles in 12 hours).

MPs were encouraged to donate as they took part, with all of the money raised on the day going to help The Royal British Legion provide lifelong support for the Armed Forces community. The Central Parliament Poppy Appeal is the only charity that can fundraise in Parliament.

I would like to thank the Industry and Parliament Trust and The Royal British Legion for arranging this event. The Royal British Legion provides invaluable support to the Armed Forces community; I am pleased to have been able to support such a worthy cause.

Tibet has suffered greatly and as Chairman of the Parliamentary All Party Tibet Group I took great pleasure in welcoming the Sikyong of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile to Westminster where he addressed MPs and met the Speaker. As the equivalent of the Tibetan Premier the Sikyong represents millions of Tibetans who have been forced to flee their country or who still live their under Chinese oppression, and is an impressive, if relatively powerless, advocate on their behalf.

In an unprecedented move, The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, welcomed the Sikyong, Dr Lobsang Sangay, to the House, you can watch him do so here: https://youtu.be/AABKdZbqNyU. He was also able to have a meeting with the Speaker, who was very supportive. 

I visited a Guide Dogs event in Parliament on 16th November to show his support for taxi and minicab drivers receiving disability equality training when getting their licence. A Private Member’s Bill that sought to introduce such training was debated on 18th November but was not voted on due to a lack of time.

At the event, guide dog owners told me how taxi and minicab drivers refused to carry them because they had their guide dog with them. They explained that they had missed important appointments due to the refusals and how it had left them anxious and reluctant to use taxis and minicabs again.

Although the Equality Act 2010 makes it illegal for a taxi or minicab driver to refuse to carry an assistance dog, Guide Dogs research found that 42% of people living with sight loss were turned away by a taxi or minicab in the last year because of their guide dog. The research also uncovered that 38% of assistance dog owners have illegally been asked to pay an extra fare for carrying their dog.

Guide Dogs is calling for disability equality training to be made a requirement for all taxi and minicab drivers to help them understand the rights and needs of disabled people and how to welcome assistance dog owners.

It is shameful to hear from so many people who are illegally turned away from taxis and minicabs because they travel with an assistance dog. I’m asking the Government to act to ensure all taxi and minicab drivers receive disability equality training so they are aware of the law and how to assist their disabled customers in the right way.

I have joined colleagues from across the political divide in backing the Homelessness Reduction Bill at its second reading this week (Oct 28), helping to bring the bill one step closer to becoming law.

Proposed by Conservative MP Bob Blackman and supported by homelessness charities including Crisis, the bill could transform the help available to homeless people in the UK. However, if fewer than 100 MPs had attended the debate, the bill could easily have been blocked, making support from MPs critical. 

Homelessness is rising, yet, the law as it stands means that homeless people who approach their council for help can be turned away to sleep on the street. If passed, the new law would help to prevent people from losing their home in the first place and make sure all homeless people can get help when they need it, whilst continuing to protect families with children from homelessness.

The Bill has the backing of the Government, the opposition and the Communities and Local Government Select Committee following an in-depth inquiry.

This is about basic social justice. Nobody should be forced to sleep rough because they can’t get the help they need.

I’ve personally heard from local constituents who were unable to get help when they became homeless. It’s time we took action. We need to make sure that anyone facing homelessness can get help, ideally before they actually lose their home. That’s why I’m backing the Homelessness Reduction Bill put forward by Bob Blackman MP, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the house to offer their support as it moves through parliament.

During the debate, I raised two particularly absurd situations; first, where people have to wait until the bailiffs arrive to be evicted before they are able to get help from the housing department, which is one of the reasons why private landlords are reluctant on taking housing benefit tenants; second, children in care or those leaving care can be evicted from council owned housing only then for their local council to pick up the bill for looking after them. I was pleased that Bob Blackman was able to confirm that both these areas are dealt with in his Bill.

World AIDS Day is on 1 December, and this year I am asking my constituents to join in the fight against HIV stigma.

Although HIV treatment and prevention are so much better than they were 30 years ago, public attitudes have not progressed as far or as fast. Stigma remains an unacceptable blight on the lives of people living with HIV. It negatively affects their lives, and can prevent them from accessing treatment. And it can stop people at risk from getting an HIV test.

Unlike many of the products and styles we love to bring back from the 80s and 90s, stigma is something that should be left in the past. HIV stigma is not retro, it’s just wrong.

I am proud to wear a red ribbon to mark this year's World AIDS Day. I want to send the message that there is no place for HIV stigma in East Worthing and Shoreham.

Stigma often results from lack of knowledge. I am joining forces with the National AIDS Trust to encourage people in East Worthing and Shoreham to visit www.worldaidsday.org and find out the facts about HIV.

There are more than 100,000 people living with HIV in the UK. We must do more to prevent stigma from disrupting their lives. Together we can put an end to this senseless prejudice.

NHS Improvement has today announced that it has asked Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (WSHFT) to help staff at Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals (BSUH) improve the quality, safety and financial sustainability of services there.

BSUH NHS Trust was inspected by CQC earlier this year in June and their Quality Report, which can be seen here: http://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/RXH, found BSUH to be Inadequate.The Trust was put into financial special measures after it informed NHSI in October that it was no longer credible to report that it would meet its agreed end-of-year deficit of £15.5m. 

Whilst WSHFT was rated Outstanding by CQC following its inspection in earlier this year June, it can be seen here: http://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/RYR. WSHFT is one of only five acute trusts in England to be rated Outstanding by the Care Quality Commission and shares similar geographic and demographic pressures as its neighbour BSUH.

The aim of the initiative is to support BSUH to make the improvements needed to emerge successfully from Special Measures on both quality and finance.

The news that Western Sussex Hospitals Trust has been parachuted in to take over management of the failing Brighton Hospital Trust is a real vote of confidence in the management of Worthing, Southlands and St Richard’s Hospitals.

It is hoped that Chief Executive Marianne Griffith and her team can work some of the magic on Brighton that has led Western Sussex to be one of only 5 acute hospital trusts rated ‘outstanding’ in the whole of England.

The longstanding problems with Brighton have been having an increasing knock-on effect on West Sussex and needed sorting out, just so long as Marianne does not take her eye off the ball with keeping Worthing as one of the country’s top hospitals.

• If you suffer from a long term health condition such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), an umbrella term used to describe a number of conditions including emphysema and chronic bronchitis; diabetes; heart or kidney disease; are aged 65 or over; or are pregnant, get the free flu vaccine now

• If you’re a parent of a child aged 2 -7, ensure your child is vaccinated against flu. Children aged 2, 3 and 4 can get the vaccination from their GP. Parents of children in school years 1, 2 and 3 are asked to give permission for their child to receive the free nasal spray vaccination at school

• Seek immediate advice from your pharmacist at the first sign of winter illnesses, before it gets too serious

• Heat your home to at least 18°C (65°F), if you can

• Keep an eye out for elderly relatives and neighbours

I welcomed the decision by Coperforma to step down from its role as patient transport service provider in Sussex and the announcement that South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS) is to take over the contract.

I have been working with MPs from across Sussex on a cross-party basis to enact change and improve the patient service provision in Sussex.

Since 1st April 2016 the Sussex Patient Transport Service (PTS) has been managed by Coperforma. The start of the new contract saw unacceptable levels of performance. There were numerous problems examples of patients unable to make bookings, inappropriate transport showing up, such as vehicles not suitable for wheelchair users, whilst complaints were not managed and handled effectively. There were also issues with patients and health professionals being unable to get through on the phone lines and many patients were collected late or not at all, which lead to missed appointments.

Although High Weald Lewes Havens CCG, which monitors the contact on behalf of the Sussex CCGs, had been working very closely with Coperforma and performance has improved, albeit inconsistently across Sussex, there have been a number of concerns around the sustainability of the service.

Following these concerns, Coperforma have agreed to step down from the contract. In order to minimise disruption, the transfer of the contract will be phased over the next few months and SCAS will take complete control in March 2017.

I have been receiving numerous complaints from constituents who have suffered as a result of Coperforma’s failure to properly manage this contract. I have heard many examples of transport failing to turn up on time, or at all, when it does it often inaccessible, and drivers who do not appear to know where to transport their patients. Many patients failed to get to their appointments at hospital and this caused distress to the vulnerable and difficulties for hospitals and their staff.

This is clearly completely unacceptable given it is dealing with very vulnerable patients and despite the recent improvements, it was clear that Coperforma were not capable of delivering a sustainable and reliable services across Sussex. I therefore welcome their decision to step away from the contract and hand over to SCAS.

I hope we can now move on from this debacle, learn the lessons and see a service delivered that works for all patients in Sussex, ensuring that they are transported promptly and compassionately.