Courts and Tribunals Bill

Kirith Entwistle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Clause 17 of the Bill—Jack and Paul’s law—fulfils my constituent Claire Throssell’s promise to her two beautiful boys after they were killed in a house fire set alight by their known domestically abusive father during a court-ordered contact visit. Claire promised her sons that no more children should lose their lives like they did at the hands of an abusive parent. For nearly 12 years, she has campaigned relentlessly to honour that promise. When I first met Claire, I told her that if I was elected, I would do all I could to help her fulfil that promise, so it is a pleasure to have her in the Chamber with us today. I urge Members across the House to support this Bill and ensure that no more children die like Claire’s sons did, and that no more towns like our hometown of Penistone are left to grieve.

Clause 17 will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989: our Government putting children’s best interests first and tackling the pro-contact culture that prioritises parental involvement over children’s welfare. This is urgent. Domestic abuse continues to be everyday business in the family courts, featuring in 90% of the cases reviewed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in 2025. Being a parent is a privilege, not a right, and when a parent poses a serious risk to a child, the law must act. Conservative Governments had a decade to act after the tragic murder of Claire’s boys and her campaign to change the law.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is staggering that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), did not even mention amendment 67, tabled in his name, in his remarks?

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend.

The Tories failed to act while they were in government, despite the fact that it was a Conservative Government who commissioned the harm report published in 2020. The report stated that

“the presumption should not remain in its present form”,

and recommended addressing its “detrimental effects”. It specifically said that

“the courts’ pro-contact culture operates as a barrier to addressing domestic abuse”,

with the presumption reinforcing that culture and children’s voices being “muted or unheard”, leaving children invisible and silenced like those referred to only as Child A or B in serious case reviews. But Conservative Governments did nothing, and the retention of presumption continued to be fatal.

Since Jack and Paul’s murders in 2014, 19 more children—who we know of—have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents, including Sara Sharif. That makes a total of 68 child homicides since Women’s Aid started researching this issue. Yet today the Conservatives have the audacity to attempt to remove Jack and Paul’s law from this Bill with their amendment 67. They have the audacity to ignore a report their Government commissioned and to table that amendment, after the inaction of no fewer than five Conservative Prime Ministers. I will not stand for it. Claire Throssell, my fearless constituent, will not stand for it. The people of Penistone and Stocksbridge, so many of whom have stood behind Claire and held her up, will not stand for it. I ask this House to show that it will not stand for it either, and to vote to finally repeal the presumption of contact in law, in order to demonstrate that this House believes that every decision that this Government make in the family courts and justice system must prioritise children’s safety, wellbeing and right to grow up free from harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle]

I speak today as a victim of domestic abuse who has found going through the court system especially triggering and on behalf of constituents who have shared their harrowing experiences with me. One wrote to me and said that

“the system still allows a father to weaponise the child, to throw accusations whilst protecting his position, while none of the issues I raised got any acknowledgement.”

Another felt that

“the process itself has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of our justice and child protection systems.”

I start with new clause 6, on victim-led intensive case management, which I stress is an issue across all courts. Recent experience of the courts shows that special measures are still not being properly implemented. The lack of a common-sense approach to communication is still a problem in 2026, when great technological advances have been made.

I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on her many amendments that seek to improve experiences for victims, such as new clauses 7 to 9 on judicial training. I stress that all members of the judiciary should always have access to training. In fact, they should have to hear at first hand from victim-survivors about their experiences as part of that training. It does not matter how many times somebody tells me that they understand what I am going through or acknowledge what I have been through—they really cannot unless they have lived it themselves or they know somebody who has.

The phrase “trauma-informed” is incredibly powerful and crucial. Such training should always be trauma-informed. That brings me to new clause 13 and the duty to provide trauma-informed training, which needs to include looking at how we communicate what will happen in court with victims, as well as the impact those proceedings will have on victims.

There are severe issues with diversity and representation across all levels of the judiciary. I would be interested to hear more about what our Government are doing to ensure better representation.

New clause 16 is about remote participation. As someone who has recently been through that as a victim, I believe that we must include an assessment of the special measures involved and whether they are adequately communicated to victims. In my case, they were not. I recently experienced an online hearing in which I had my perpetrator staring at me the entire time. I was not able to blur the background on my screen and I was not able to hide his face. The hearing was adjourned because the relevant documents did not reach the right parties on time, despite the fact that email exists and has done for some time.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for her bravery in sharing her powerful story and for highlighting how special measures do not work if people do not know that they available to them. During the Bill Committee, I argued that special measures should be there as standard, with people having the ability to choose to remove them to face their perpetrator in court. Does she agree that we could easily roll that out across all our courts so that every victim would be protected from the moment they arrived?

[Kirith Entwistle]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that we should look for that to be the standard measure. I did ask for special measures, but when I turned up at court they were not implemented, so I had to walk past my perpetrator before going into the courtroom. That is what I experienced as a Member of Parliament. I dread to think—although I do know—what some of my constituents are experiencing.

On new clause 24, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for ensuring that children’s voices and views are enshrined in the family courts. I know that representatives of Women’s Aid are here, as is the formidable Claire Throssell. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) on her tireless efforts in making that happen; she is incredible. The pro-contact culture embedded in the court system puts too many children at unnecessary risk. I am really pleased to see that the Government are removing that.

I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) addressing, in the form of amendment 22, the issue of post-separation abuse, which the courts have facilitated. I thank him for being a strong ally and for standing up for his constituents. He and I have both experienced a deluge of constituents contacting us about the abuse that they face and their experiences of the court system. It is always good to have his support.

I am grateful that the Government are taking steps to go further for victims by introducing the victims helpline, addressing the issue of the automatic right to appeal so that victims are not retraumatised, and establishing specialist RASSO courts. However, I want to put on record my experiences as a victim and those of my constituents to ensure that the system truly supports all victims and ensures that they are genuinely heard and properly communicated with, that they know what their rights are and what is available to them, and that we are all shielded from further triggering and traumatic experiences involving our abusers.

I am fed up of people and institutions telling me that they understand and then taking action that tells me they do not. I am fed up of being told that they are familiar with domestic abuse or coercive control and then telling me that it does not matter. I am fed up of feeling ignored and dismissed, and so are my constituents. Our justice system exists to protect victims, not to enable perpetrators. We should always remember that.

We still allow our perceptions about how good a person looks on paper to cloud our judgments. Perpetrators walk among us: they are police officers; they are teachers; they are fathers; they are mothers. They are here in every aspect of our daily lives, and we cannot judge somebody because of how good they look on paper and give them the benefit of the doubt because of that. We have to look at the facts, we have to ensure that victims are heard and, crucially, we need to make sure that their voices are put at the heart of every decision that we make and that they are properly and adequately supported at every single step of the way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate three-minute time limit, I call Sir Ashley Fox.