Courts and Tribunals Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I want to raise three issues. Having been a magistrate for 20 years, I think that one of the things that has led to the problems has been the closure of so many courts across the estate. The potential to reopen some of those sites should be in the mix to get the magistrates courts up and running.

On the right to elect a court, I was opposed to clause 3, as the Minister will know, but the right to elect a court was not a red line for me, because it does not happen in Scotland, and I do not see its constitutional skies falling in upon its system.

I would like to see some changes in the victim contact scheme. At the moment, the scheme does not allow victims to be advised of whether an offender has changed their name or their appearance. That information is not routinely shared with victims because it is considered to be sensitive personal data, and there is a presumption that it will not be disclosed unless there is lawful reason to do so. Let us take the example of the Haselip family. In 2003, Mick Haselip was violently murdered in his home in Corby. Rikki Stewart was convicted of the murder and received a mandatory life sentence. When he was released in July 2024, he changed his name to Rory Wilson. Nobody informed the family of that, and they were absolutely unaware that he had changed his name. They say:

“This omission has undermined our ability to understand his movements, monitor our own safety and engage meaningfully with the Victim Contact Scheme.”

In 1986, Adam Stein murdered six-year-old Collette Gallacher. He has changed his appearance and name multiple times, and Collette’s younger sisters, Lauren and Claire, fear for their own safety if he is ever granted parole again. They do not know what he looks like. They do not know what his name is. The family are not aware. These people are living in plain sight, and this is a loophole that we need to close. We need to change the presumption that this information will not be disclosed to a presumption that it will be, so that families know what is happening.

To put the shoe on the other foot, Izzy was murdered by her husband as their two young daughters slept in the room next door. Izzy’s mum, Helena Sharrott, was granted a special guardianship order and there is a request to change the children’s names, but they have been told no because the father, who murdered their mother, has a say in it. That is wrong; it is unjust, and we need to change it.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Clause 17 would repeal the presumption of parental involvement contained in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. That presumption currently provides that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. Amendment 67, tabled in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), would keep the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial for the welfare of the child. It is my belief that our legal system should reflect the fact that in most cases, a child benefits from having both parents involved in their life. Clause 17 would do the opposite. It sends a serious social signal that the active involvement of both parents is no longer our expected starting point when considering a child’s welfare.

[Dr Tidball]

Does the hon. Member not agree with the harm report commissioned by her party in government, which found, on the basis of the evidence, that this presumption creates a pro-contact culture, meaning that the voices of children are hidden and unheard? The evidence from Women’s Aid demonstrates that 68 children have lost their lives because of the presumption.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her powerful speech earlier. Ultimately, the impact assessment for this Bill says that there would be no impact, but I believe that the impact on families more broadly is not worth the change.

[Dr Mullan]

As my hon. Friend points out, the impact assessment says that this particular measure, on its own, will not make any difference to the harm done to children, but we absolutely recognise that the checklist as a whole, and the way that it works, does need to be reformed. We think a more wholesale reform of the checklist is more appropriate than just attracting interest in one particular element of it.

[Rebecca Smith]

Exactly. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

My concern is that, in some cases, clause 17 will increase the state’s power to erase one parent from a child’s life, and we know that that is often their father. It will rebalance the relationship between parents and the state.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I have already given way twice. I will not get any more time. I am very sorry.

We must avoid a situation in which the law views children as the state’s ultimate responsibility while parents must justify their involvement on a case-by-case basis. We must also avoid anything that presumes that the state makes a better parent than the actual parents themselves. Of course, the state should intervene when a child is at risk, but our default position should be that, wherever it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from the love and guidance of both their parents. The state should step in only when there is clear evidence that it should do so, and we do not reject that point. If we remove this principle from the law, we take another step towards a system in which parental involvement becomes discretionary and the state’s role becomes paramount. That is not a healthy direction for family justice.

I recognise, of course, that this is a sensitive issue for survivors of domestic abuse. To be clear, there is no absolute right to contact under existing law. Courts already have the power to restrict unsafe contact. The presumption of parental involvement is already qualified by risk of harm to the child, so why do we need this clause at all? Surely we in this House should be ensuring that current safeguards work properly instead.

As I said in a recent debate on fathers and male role models,

“There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 450WH.]

One possible solution is a child-centred parental relationship test. The test would direct courts to consider the quality and sustainability of the child’s relationship with each parent. It would help courts to distinguish between safe and harmful contact.

As things stand, there is a real risk that clause 17 will weaken, not strengthen, children’s relationships with safe parents without addressing the current failures that leave children exposed to their unsafe ones. Fundamentally, parental involvement is a relationship recognised by the state, not a privilege granted by the state. Both parents matter, and we should not be afraid to say so.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I will focus my remarks on clause 17 and the presumption of contact. My involvement in this issue started with a letter from a constituent—a mother trying to protect her child from an abusive ex-partner. In such cases, the court can play a role in retraumatising people, and can even be a tool of the abuse.

Since I first spoke out about this matter, I have heard from countless victims. I say to them: thank you for telling your story, sorry that the justice system has failed you for so long, we will make progress, and we will not allow the Opposition to ignore your lived experience and the hard evidence that has been given to us by people who work on the frontline. I pay tribute to Claire Throssell, who is in the Gallery today. Her boys, Jack and Paul, were killed by her abusive ex-partner in horrific circumstances. No mother should have had to have shown the strength that Claire has shown, but she has changed the law and saved lives. I will vote today to make sure that the Opposition do not block that legacy.

The presumption of parental involvement is so damaging because it has allowed abuse to continue through the courts. The safety of children must always be the top priority. Over the past 30 years, 68 children have died because the presumption of involvement was applied when it never should have been—68 children who should have grown up, but whose lives were taken from them. I am proud that this Bill will ensure that that terrible number never rises again.

Changing the law must only be the start. Judges, magistrates and Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service operators work within the pro-contact culture that has been set by the laws we have at the moment. The Judicial College must take that on board. In the almost two years I have been working on this, the worst opinion I have heard came from a family magistrate, who told me about his friend’s experience of the parental alienation myth—ignoring the evidence, and letting his anecdotes override it.

Survivors in Calder Valley tell me that they fear not being believed, being blamed or being pushed into unsafe arrangements. They fear the drive to drop off their children with an abusive ex-partner. They fear the agonising wait for their children to be returned to them safe. For too long, the judicial system has felt unreliable, as a deeply traumatic tool of abusers. This Government have committed to halving violence against women. This change is a step towards that. There is more to come, but our courts must put victims and children at the centre of the decisions.