Courts and Tribunals Bill

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Josh Fenton-Glynn

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

[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.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Josh Fenton-Glynn

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I will speak in part to amendments 1 and 2, although we will not vote on them this evening. Essentially, I am speaking because we do not believe that scrapping the two-child limit and lifting it in this way is the way to tackle child poverty.

When the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit in 2017, we did so for one simple reason: fairness. We believed then, as we do now, that people on benefits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. Nine years later, we stand by that principle.

The welfare state should be a safety net for people in genuine need, yet too many people feel that the welfare system has drifted from its original purpose. They see a system that rewards dependency while working families and individuals shoulder the tax burden. The two-child limit is a way of saying that work should pay, that taking responsibility should matter and that the system should stand with those who pull their weight.

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

I am excited to hear that the hon. Member thinks work should pay. Can she tell us why, under the last Government, we went from one in three children in poverty having a parent in work to two in three children in poverty having a parent in work?

[Rebecca Smith]

We know that poverty decreased under the last Government; I will make some progress.

True compassion for families in poverty means offering sustainable solutions, not just sticking plasters. We need to tackle the root causes of poverty, rather than masking the symptoms. That means dealing with structural issues that damage children’s life chances, rather than simply handing out more cash to families.

It is worth noting that the two-child limit has had no significant negative effects on school readiness for third and subsequent children in England. School readiness is the cornerstone metric of the Government’s opportunity mission. Labour and other opponents may criticise the cap for all sorts of reasons, but scrapping it will not be a cost-effective way of improving children’s educational development.

In terms of holistic solutions, we know that work is the single most transformative route out of poverty. Work provides stability, self-respect and the crucial stepping stones to a better future. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that families on universal credit can access meaningful employment. As I have said before, children in long-term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived, and they are 10% more likely to end up workless themselves.

When we were in government, Conservatives oversaw a consistent reduction in the number of children in workless households, yet under Labour that number has reached a nine-year high: there are now 1.2 million children living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year. Without a working parent at home, children miss out on seeing the rhythms and rewards of working life—the morning alarm, the daily routine, the pride of earning a wage and the discipline of saving up for things that matter. This Government seem bent on disincentivising work and destroying jobs.