Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

Debate between Edward Argar and Mark Tami

Monday 7th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mark Tami]

I thank the Minister for his kind comments. Does he agree that in an abusive relationship, victims often start with the perception that the perpetrator really loves and cares for them, and that that is why they have that controlling behaviour? They tell them, “I really care for you, so I need to monitor your mobile phone. I need to know exactly where you are going.” That turns into an abusive relationship. We have all known about relationships that we worry are not on an even keel. This is one of the most tragic cases that I have come across, but there are many other cases out there. This abuse is still there, is still prevalent and, in the worst cases, can lead to what we have seen.

[Edward Argar]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the nature of coercive and controlling behaviour, and of domestic abuse and violence. As he says, we are dealing with highly manipulative people who, in some cases, will seek to make the victim feel as if they bear responsibility. Of course, in no way do they; the only responsibility rests with the perpetrator. He is absolutely right to highlight that point.

The legal issue that we are debating falls under the ministerial responsibilities of my colleague the noble Lord Bellamy KC, who covers matters such as family law, but it is important that I respond to this debate, not just because he is in the other place, but because there is clearly read-across to my responsibility as victims Minister.

The issue of parental responsibility is fundamentally important. It can shape the development of and relationship with a child. As the right hon. Gentleman and others highlighted, under by the Children Act 1989, “parental responsibility” refers to all the rights, duties, and responsibilities of parents or carers towards their children. That includes deciding where the child should go to school, live and go on holiday. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) said, the Act starts from a presumption that the child’s welfare and interests are paramount, and, to a degree, from the assumption that a child’s being with their parents, or that there is parental contact and responsibility, is the preferred approach.

As hon. Members have highlighted, legally, mothers and fathers automatically have parental responsibility. Courts can make orders to restrict their parental responsibility where that is in the child’s best interests, and depending on the circumstances, but it cannot be simply removed. I do not propose to reiterate at length the legal context, which the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside set out very clearly.

I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ arguments for changing the law so that that a parent convicted of the murder of the other parent has their parental responsibility automatically suspended during the period of their imprisonment. There is no doubt that, legally and emotionally, this is a complex and challenging topic, and I sympathise with the view that more should be done to ensure that the courts can better support bereaved families in such circumstances. I hasten to add that today is only my 11th day back in the Ministry of Justice, but I have reservations, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham alluded to, about whether an automatic suspension—the reversal that the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside talked about—is necessarily the best way of achieving the outcomes sought, given the legal context of the Children’s Act. I will unpick that in a moment.

The hon. Member for Bristol East and I may not have the same political perspective on everything, but throughout my time in this House, her contributions have always been thoughtful and considered, as were her remarks today. I will look up Children Heard and Seen, but I would be grateful if she sent me anything that she wanted to about that charity. In a previous role at the Ministry of Justice, I was responsible for pushing through the female offender strategy, which sought to reduce the use of prison when people—particularly mothers—were given short sentences for minor offences. There is cross-over with the work I am currently doing, so I would be grateful for anything she could share with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is kind to presume that I am as expert 11 days in as I was when I had held this brief for many years, but there is a fair amount that I have kept close to. It is challenging. We must recognise the independence of our judiciary and the very clear delineation between judiciary and politics, but we routinely seek the views and advice of the judiciary. In a moment, I will turn to something that we may be able to do in this space.

[Mark Tami]

That sounds all well and good, but it ignores the reality of where we are and what the family have been through. They have suffered the loss of their daughter in horrific circumstances; we have not gone into the detail today. Asking them effectively to go through that again to get something that they rightly, in my view, assumed would be the case anyway puts a hell of a strain on them. In many cases, people might decide not to go down that road, because they cannot put themselves and their family through it.

[Edward Argar]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that. I would find it difficult to articulate as eloquently as he did not only how horrific the original events were but how horrific the possibility of reliving them, in a sense, by having to go through a court process, is. It may disappoint him, but I will seek to move things forward a little later in my remarks. We come back to that point in the Children Act 1989: the presumption of the role of the court. There will always be an element of that court process necessary under the presumptions that were built into that groundbreaking piece of legislation.

I also highlight that, as I mentioned, under section 91(14) of the Act the court can prevent a parent from bringing or making applications to the court without the court’s prior permission, in particular where their doing so may cause harm or distress to the children or other parties involved in the case. That may not entirely remove the problem, but it gives the courts a route to prevent the vexatious use of the legal process to try to re-traumatise or re-victimise a family. Judges would consider that, and would have the power to prevent such an application where multiple applications were being used to cause harm and upset.

As I said, I have heard the calls today to change the law so that a parent convicted of murdering the other parent would have their parental responsibility automatically suspended during imprisonment. I think the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside characterised it as essentially a reversal of the presumption in this case. I have to say I am truly sympathetic, particularly given the case at hand. I cannot imagine anyone not being so, having heard the right hon. Gentleman and being aware of the circumstances of the case. However, the courts have mechanisms both to make orders to give parental responsibility to family members and to restrict it significantly in appropriate cases, but always through the prism of their interpretation of the child’s welfare and best interests. Every family is different, as is each set of circumstances that families find themselves in. Our view is that it is important that courts continue to have the flexibility that the Children Act gives them to make decisions that are tailored to the unique life of every child.

The legal challenge to the concept of automatic suspension is that it risks not aligning with the existing principles underpinning that key piece of legislation—the 1989 Act—and the way it works. There is a genuine risk that if we set up a mechanism to suspend parental responsibility automatically in certain circumstances, without affording the court the opportunity to hear all the arguments or evidence in the case, that would undermine the fundamentals of the framework in the Act. I recognise that in situations where one parent is convicted of the murder of the other, the process of obtaining the legal redress and the orders that I have set out today can be time-consuming, and that making or responding to court applications and attending multiple court hearings on related issues can be psychologically horrendous for those involved and can re-traumatise people who are just beginning to rebuild their lives.

I therefore want to outline an offer: two measures that the Government are taking to improve matters for families in such circumstances. I fear I may not go as far as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside might wish, but I hope it might be a further step forward. I know him to be a reasonable man, so he may, without prejudice and without in any way resiling from his clear view on what needs to be done, take up the offer of these measures—I suspect and hope he will.

First, the right hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue about cost and he will be aware that on 17 October we laid before the House secondary legislation to expand the scope of legal aid to applications for special guardianship orders. That means that when a private individual such as a family member wishes to become a special guardian, they can receive legal aid advice and representation to help. A successful application to be a special guardian will result in that individual having parental responsibility for a child or children.

Secondly, having heard the arguments made today and having read and carefully reflected on the petition and my predecessor’s response to it, I will ask the family procedure rule committee to consider what opportunities there will be for procedures to be expedited or otherwise adjusted so that, in circumstances such as these, applications for special guardianship or other orders as well as applications to restrict parental responsibility can be made with as few procedural burdens, and as swiftly, as possible. It will be for the rule committee to consider that request, but it is a request that we will make. That would have the benefit of maintaining the Children Act and existing legal mechanisms and principles for courts to assess matters on a case-by-case basis, tailored to the child, but it would, I hope, reduce the trauma and burden that those processes can place on people.

In short, we believe that it is right to limit the parental responsibility of those who hold it if that is deemed to be for the welfare and in the best interests of the child, and that it is right that that power is exercised by the courts and that they have the powers at their disposal to make these orders. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside for securing it. I suspect he has spoken to many Ministers, but I will consider very carefully the points that have been made. If he wishes to take me up on my offer, I will meet him and Lord Bellamy, who is the lead for family law in the Department. If he will allow me to join that meeting, as the victims Minister, I would be happy to further discuss the points that have been raised this afternoon and how we can best deliver on our commitment to safeguard children while ensuring that their best interests remain the utmost priority.

Covid-19

Debate between Edward Argar and Mark Tami

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

If my hon. Friend will show a little forbearance as I make a little progress, I will come to vaccinations and the vulnerable in a moment. I will seek to address his point then; if I do not, I am sure that he will prompt me.

I think every Member of this House fully appreciates and understands the huge burden that these restrictions now place on people today and every day: on pupils, on parents, on businesses, on individuals and on families. The Secretary of State for Education has set out our plan to support people in education settings, including with the provision of new equipment for remote learning. For businesses such as those in retail, hospitality and leisure that have been forced to close their doors once again, we are providing an additional £4.6 billion of support. There will be not a single Member in this House who has not received correspondence and pleas from their constituents who run businesses, be it in hospitality or the self-employed—a whole range of people. Members on both sides of the House will be working flat out to seek to assist them. I do appreciate the pressures that they are under. Of course, that support comes on top of our unprecedented £280 billion plan for jobs, including the extension of the furlough scheme until April.

Let me turn to vaccines. We know that in the long run the best way to help everyone in this country is to suppress the virus and to vaccinate people against it. The NHS is committed to offering, by 15 February, a vaccination to everyone in the top four priority groups, who currently account for more than four out of every five—roughly 88%—covid fatalities. The groups include older care home residents and staff, everyone over 70, all frontline NHS and care staff, and all those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. In working towards that target, there are already more than 1,000 vaccination centres throughout the country, including more than 200 hospital sites, which will increase to 270, and some 775 GP-led sites. Of course, pharmacies are already working with GPs to deliver the vaccine in many areas of the country. As vaccine supply increases, community pharmacies will continue to play an essential role.

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) prompts me, let me turn briefly to the question he asked. The Prime Minister and ministerial colleagues will take into consideration a number of factors when looking at the right time—the safe time, based on the scientific and clinical advice—to ease the current restrictions and to move to a tiered system. One factor that I know will weigh with them and play a part in that decision will be the extent to which vaccination has significantly reduced the risk of death in those groups most likely to be affected by the virus. It would, though, be premature—indeed, it would go well beyond my pay grade—for me to set out the detail of what precise considerations the Prime Minister will be looking at as we reach that point, hopefully in a few months’ time.

This week has seen the announcement of the opening of seven mass vaccination hubs in places such as sports stadiums and exhibition centres, and yesterday we launched our full vaccine deployment plan, which includes measures that we will take, together with local authorities, to maximise take-up among harder-to-reach communities, and our new national booking service, which will make it easier to book and access appointments. In that context, I should pay tribute to one of the great strengths of this country, which is the willingness of the people of this country to step up, pull together and volunteer to assist in times of great need for this country. We are seeing that happening now. In that context, I also pay tribute to The Sun’s “Jabs Army” campaign, through which The Sun is doing its bit to encourage people to sign up and to volunteer—I believe it has got more than 30,000 people to sign up. All this is a reflection of the innate strength of community in this country: when something needs to be done, the people of this country step up and do their bit.

Another part of the plan is our new vaccinations dashboard, which gives daily updates on our progress in the biggest vaccination effort in British history.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The Minister has not touched on the covid deniers out there. No doubt we are all getting emails from them, and they are obviously on social media as well. It is important that we get across the message about the safety of the vaccine and the importance of everybody getting a vaccine. It is not just about someone’s personal freedom and what they do; it is about what they can give to somebody else as well.

[Edward Argar]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I say to those who may doubt or speculate about this disease: it is real and it has, sadly, taken more than 80,000 of our fellow citizens from us. Watch the news coverage that we all see every night of our amazing frontline NHS staff explaining just what they have seen, what they have had to do on their shift, how they have fought valiantly to save people’s lives, often successfully but on occasions sadly not, and what that has meant for them. I reflect on an incredibly dignified elderly gentlemen whom I saw on the news before Christmas—I think his name was Mr Lewis from the Rhondda—who, in the space of a week, had lost his wife and two other members of his family to this cruel disease. I say to those who say that it is not serious and that it is not as dangerous as some people say: watch those news clips and listen to those people who have been bereaved, and to all those people who have been in hospital and thankfully have recovered but have been through hell and back with this disease. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We all have a part to play in following the rules and beating this disease. I, for one, as soon as I am eligible to have my vaccination—I fear that the grey hair may not get me higher up the list and that I am too young, along with my shadow, and we may have a while to wait—will certainly take up that offer.