I have been advised that the petition debated today was started following the sad murder of Jade Ward last year. Sentencing in that case has now concluded. However, I remind Members that they must not refer to cases that are currently before the courts and should be cautious in referring to any cases where proceedings may be brought in the future.
That this House has considered e-petition 614893, relating to suspension of parental responsibility for people convicted of serious offences.
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. The petition calls for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility for any parent found guilty of murdering the other during their period of imprisonment. I want to place on record my thanks to Jade Ward’s family and friends and, in particular, Edwin Duggan for their dedication and work in putting together this petition, which has received more than 130,000 signatures. That is a remarkable achievement.
At the heart of this debate is the life and memory of Jade Ward. Jade was an enormously loved mother, daughter and friend. She has been described as the sunshine in the lives of all who knew her. She was bubbly, kind and caring, and truly devoted to her four sons. The last days of Jade’s life were spent caring for her grandmother as she recovered from surgery, laughing with her friends in her garden and providing for her children. These final moments typify the life that Jade led and the kind person she was.
On 26 August 2021, Jade was brutally murdered by her estranged husband, Russell Marsh, in a premeditated attack. On 12 April 2022, Marsh was given a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. After Jade ended their relationship a week before her murder, Marsh had reportedly told friends that if he could not have Jade, no one could. Marsh was a controlling figure throughout their relationship, who would tell Jade who she could see and speak to, and what she could wear and do. When Jade stood up to him, she was killed as punishment.
Jade was just 27 and lived in Shotton. She had four children with Marsh, who were sleeping nearby as their mother’s life was taken away from her. Jade’s family were horrified to learn that, despite these utterly distressing circumstances, they face the prospect of continued contact with the man who murdered their daughter. Although Marsh will obviously not have custody over the children while he serves his time in prison, despite all his appalling actions, under law, he retains parental responsibility. Jade’s mother, Karen, said that she was “absolutely gobsmacked” to hear that her daughter’s killer could still have a say in the boys’ lives. If you walked down any street today, Mr Hollobone, and told people how the law works on this matter, I think they would be gobsmacked too.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful speech. Does he agree that “re-victimisation” is not too strong a word to describe what would happen to the family in such circumstances?
I agree, because it just does not stop and there is no chance to move on—not that it would ever be easy to move on. It gives the convicted person even more weapons to use against the family of the deceased.
It must be extremely traumatic for the children to know that the person who killed their mother or father knows so much about their lives, particularly if they witnessed the murder. The law surrounding parental responsibility is clearly not fit for purpose and facilitates further unnecessary emotional trauma. It helps perpetrators with a history of domestic abuse to practise their controlling and psychological abuse from inside their prison cell. We often think of domestic abuse as physical violence, which it is in many cases, but at its root is control. It is about the perpetrator controlling their so-called partner, and having control from their prison cell must give them a real buzz.
If parental rights are by default retained, even in the most horrific of circumstances, when can they be restricted? The Children Act 1989 allows the guardian or holders of a residence order to go to a family court to bring a prohibited steps order against a person with parental responsibility, but the onus is still on the family to prove that parental rights should be revoked. It is expensive and time-consuming, and is an emotionally draining process for the families, who have to come to terms with the tragic loss they have just experienced. That is why Jade’s family—Karen, Paul and Pip—and their friends are campaigning to have the parental responsibility of a parent who is found guilty of murdering the other parent automatically suspended.
I am very moved by the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. As someone who brought up a child on my own, I often worried about what would happen if something happened to me. Does he agree that the current system fails to put the child at the centre of the legislation?
I agree with the hon. Lady. I will go on to talk about family courts, including some of their problems and the lack of connection between what happens there and in other courts. In this case, and indeed in many other cases, children can be effectively weaponised by the person who has committed the offence, who can carry on their control and abuse.
Currently, the onus is on the family to prove why Marsh’s parental responsibility should be revoked or restricted, whereas Jade’s law calls for parental responsibility to be automatically suspended in circumstances such as these, putting the onus on the killer to go through the legal hoops of proving they deserve parental responsibility, freeing the victim’s family of the traumatic burden they currently carry. As Jade’s mother said:
“We are going through enough without having him looming over our heads.”
That really sums up the situation we find in the law today.
Unfortunately, Jade’s family are not the only ones. Ahead of the debate, the Chair of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), spoke to survivors of domestic abuse who are experiencing ongoing issues relating to the retention of parental responsibility by ex-partners. Their experiences highlighted just how far our laws on parental responsibilities and the family court system are failing children and victims of domestic violence.
One issue that came out strongly from the discussions was that violence committed against a parent is not distinct from violence against a child. Indeed, allowing a child to witness or be surrounded by violent behaviour is inherently abusive in itself. A parent’s willingness to subject their child to that surely calls into question their ability to act in that child’s best interests.
Yet women who spoke to the Committee felt that family courts do not recognise that. Despite all the convictions for traumatic sexual, physical and emotional abuse, the threat those men pose to their own children’s welfare does not seem to be acknowledged. Over and over again, the Committee heard that the abuser’s right to be a parent was prioritised over the children’s right to safety. A woman whose former partner was convicted of sexual abuse offences asked what I think is a perfectly reasonable question: why should he be allowed to access their children when he was considered too dangerous to work with or be around other people’s children?
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. To expand on this interesting idea, does he envisage this measure being akin to a parole board, where somebody fights their case for early release, or would there be some kind of additional legal process, such as requiring them to go back to court and fight for their rights?
As I said, I believe the process should be turned round, so that it puts the onus on the convicted person, and they would have to go through the same process that the victim’s family are effectively forced to go through now.
I am delighted that Labour supports this change, but I do not want it to be a party political matter because it is not. I do not think that anyone in this room, regardless of their party, would stand up and defend the current system or say: “It’s absolutely fine. I don’t know what the fuss is about.” As I have said, if we went out on the streets, almost everybody would say, “That seems to be the correct thing to do”. I hope we can move forward across the House and add a mechanism to existing legislation, such as the Children Act 1989, whereby one parent found guilty of murdering the other parent would have their responsibility rights automatically suspended throughout their term of imprisonment—which, again, would impose the burden on the convicted person.
I am not prejudging what the Minister will say, but I am sure his officials will say, as they always do: “This is very difficult. It’s going to take a long time. We can’t do this; we can’t do that”. I have always believed that where there is a will, there is a way, and I am sure that the appropriate legislation can be amended to ensure that this change actually happens. The implementation of Jade’s law would not add additional costs to the public purse. In fact, it might save local authorities money, because they would no longer have to send social workers to visit convicted parents to obtain permission for things. It is a cost-free or even money-saving reform that would relieve the traumatic burden that the families of victims currently carry, and it is the morally right thing to do. To me, it is simple and common sense.
I had a similar, horrific case in my constituency that related to the parental rights of someone who was convicted of sexual offences against my constituent’s children. This is a cross-party issue, and I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who at that time made change happen and was very supportive. I urge the Minister to make change happen today for Jade.
To conclude, I read a statement issued by Jade’s parents after their daughter’s killer was sentenced:
“Jade was the sunshine in our lives, she was the glue that held us all together. She was also a devoted mum who would do anything for her children, a much-loved friend, daughter, sister, aunty, niece and granddaughter. Jade’s whole life was ahead of her, and her death has left a void in all our lives.”
Sadly, it is now too late for Jade. But her children, and others in the same situation, still have their whole lives before them. We owe it to them to ensure that the system is on the side of the victims.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the petitioners for bringing us this important debate. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Jade’s family, and thank them for their bravery in advocating for change at such a tragic time.
Looking at the list of petition signatories by parliamentary constituency, there is clearly a strong geographical centre of support in north Wales and just across the border, with strong pockets of support in Delyn, Vale of Clwyd, Ellesmere Port, Chester and, of course, Wrexham. Some 878 people in Wrexham signed the petition, but I have no doubt that support for its aims extends right across the country, across parties and borders.
Let me touch on a few points. The Government’s initial response states that, under the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility can already be lifted by the court. There is a mechanism in the Act that allows for a member of a child’s family to care for that child if there is no parent to do so on a day-to-day basis. I am pleased that that safeguard and option is already in law, as it should be, but the law could go further.
My concern is that the process of obtaining that legal status is lengthy and expensive, and that, as a direct result of that lengthy process, parental responsibility remains with the perpetrator of a crime until the process is complete. If the process of obtaining what I understand is called a special guardianship order was less time consuming, less expensive and less onerous for family members who honourably try to do the right thing in difficult circumstances, we might not be seeking the automatic removal of parental responsibility.
Although it is different from Jade’s law, I do have some experience with the case of constituent who is trying to obtain an order to take over parental responsibility for their grandchildren in the absence of parents who are present and able to parent. My constituent’s case constituent highlighted to me how difficult and expensive it is to obtain the guardianship of grandchildren.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as always, Mr Hollobone. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) made some interesting points; the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care has done a lot of work on these issues, which chimes with some of the points she made.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and for sharing the experiences of Jade Ward’s family. There are no words to describe the pain that those close to Jade have been through, but my right hon. Friend did an excellent job of articulating their calls for action. It cannot be easy for those of them present here to have to listen to this debate, but I hope they feel some reassurance. People who have been through difficult experiences often get some strength from the idea that something good may come of the pain they have been through.
It is often assumed that when one parent is sentenced for a serious offence, a legal mechanism is automatically triggered to assure the safety and wellbeing of their children and those looking after them. As we have heard, that just does not happen. When a parent goes to prison and they have parental responsibility, they retain it by default. Care givers must consult them ahead of key decisions concerning the children’s names, where they go to school, their religious upbringing and any medical procedures they undergo before their 18th birthday. Where parental responsibility is concerned, the law does not differentiate between parents who commit non-violent offences and those guilty of serious offences, including murder, rape, sexual offences against children, gang-related violence and so on. As we have heard, that is even the case where one parent has killed the other, or where the parent in prison has killed another family member.
Understandably, the petition is focused on parental or interparental homicide, which is where we should start in terms of reviewing the law, but there are many other cases that involve similar scenarios. Far too many parents have to keep in contact with their abusers for their children’s sake. I say “for their children’s sake”, but that is based on a default presumption that it must always be in the child’s interest for the parent in prison to retain contact, and quite often that presumption is wrong.
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Although she is talking about people in prison, we have probably all seen instances in our casework—thankfully at a much lower level—where relationships have broken down and children are weaponised by one or both partners. I have always found it very strange that a father might not pay towards the children’s upkeep but still has the same rights as someone who does pay. I do not understand that, although I know why it is the case: the two are not seen to be connected. However, I have always had the view that if someone does not support their children, they should not automatically think they should have exactly the same rights as somebody who does.
I entirely agree. I think we have all seen cases where contact with the children will be supervised and the family will have to go to a centre due to the relationship between the ex-partners, because the mother is fearful of being alone in the same room as the father. I have seen so many examples where that has been manipulated and the father does not actually want to see the children, but instead wants to use the visit as a way of putting fear into the heart of the mother, who is bringing the children along.
Until the laws around parental responsibility change, families will continue to suffer. As we have outlined today, suspending parental responsibility for those who commit serious, violent crimes—at least on a temporary basis—would certainly be a start. The right to parental responsibility could then be reviewed and re-established if the families consent and new evidence indicates it would be appropriate.
It is important to re-emphasise that this is not a matter of removing a prisoner’s right to parental responsibility in all instances; it is about protecting children and families caught up in the most extreme circumstances. We need to consider it on a case-by-case basis. Care givers need more input into the process of determining parental responsibility from the start. The police and other authorities need more training in spotting the signs of coercive control within families. Above all, children’s best interests and safety must be put first.
It is difficult to keep up with personnel changes in this Government, but I have had meetings with Justice Ministers and the Minister for Children and Families, and I have raised this issue in various debates. We need data on how many children have a parent in prison. Anecdotally, I know that there is a huge number out there, and unless we can identify how many there are and find a way of recording them, we will never be able to give them the help and support they need.
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important and solemn debate, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I commend my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for securing this debate on such a vital issue for our Flintshire community. I will also take this opportunity to butter up the Minister a bit and welcome him to his portfolio. I am sure he is the right person in the right role at the right time to drive this forward and obtain the justice that that family and families across the country deserve.
Crime will always exist in communities. Whatever we do in society and whatever laws we pass in this place, there will always be various crimes of varying degrees of severity. Rarely—thankfully, it is rare—there is a crime that the headline writers say has rocked the community. In August 2021, the Deeside and wider Flintshire community was rocked. This is north-east Wales; this type of thing does not happen in our communities.
The words we use in this place to debate things are important. “Erskine May” tells us that moderate language is of the utmost importance in parliamentary discourse, so I always do my best to keep within the boundaries of that principle. I try to avoid extremes such as “evil” and “hate”. But when Russell Marsh—for the record, that will be the last time I do him the courtesy of using his name in this speech—killed Jade Ward, the egregious act taking place in her home in Shotton, the nature of his crime could quite easily and fairly be described as evil. In the aftermath of that horrific event, Jade’s friends and family, and indeed our entirely community, could certainly be justified in having feelings of hate. It is fair to commend the North Wales police and the court system for bringing him to justice, as he was handed a minimum 25-year sentence in April. For all the delays and issues we hear about in our justice system, the investigation, trial and sentencing took only seven months. I say “only” seven months, but it was no doubt a lifetime for Jade’s family and friends.
5:21 pm
20 of 42 shown
What exactly does the law say about this matter? When a child does not have a parent to care for them, local authorities have a duty to safeguard the child and find an interim or permanent care arrangement. The child’s relatives can seek a court order to care for them, local authorities can initiate proceedings with a view to providing for the child’s upbringing and carers can achieve parental rights through a special guardianship order.
Importantly, where two parties have parental responsibility, one party cannot make decisions unilaterally; they must seek the other party’s agreement. Responsibility is automatically equal so, in law, neither party’s parental responsibility is considered more important than the other’s. That stretches to even the most extreme cases, in which one parent has been convicted of murdering the other.
I understand that Jade’s parents have been told that if they want to take their grandsons on holiday abroad, they need permission from the father. A convicted parent must also be consulted on issues such as where the children go to school and the medical treatment they receive. Effectively, Marsh has the right to veto decisions made by Jade’s parents and pursue a family court hearing.
We can only imagine how traumatic that must be for Jade’s parents. They have already suffered the terrible pain of losing their daughter in that way, yet the process as it stands compels them to interact with their daughter’s killer. It acts as a constant reminder of surely the darkest moment in their lives. As with Jade’s boys, the children are often in the care of the family of the deceased parent. The current process effectively grants the convicted parent the means to continue the control and coercion of the family in the way they did prior to the murder of the victim.
For victims of domestic violence and for families who have lost loved ones to an abusive partner, the criminal justice process is often just too traumatic. Not only are they forced to relive harrowing experiences, but they have to come back into contact with the person responsible for them. One might think that once proceedings have ended and a criminal charge has been made and proven, they could begin to move on, but since family and criminal courts are distinct from each other, victims are forced to restart the emotional and burdensome process to restrict parental rights.
One of the women who spoke to the Chair of the Petitions Committee found the family court system itself to be abusive. With renewed contact with her ex-partner, it became a new avenue through which he continued his controlling behaviour. A common opinion was that family courts are not equipped to deal with traumatic cases of murder and domestic abuse.
Both Jade’s family and the women who spoke to the Committee also emphasised the financial pressure imposed on them by the current system. Pursuing a case in the family court is expensive, and the lack of funding for legal aid is a longstanding issue, as we all know. Victims and their families are forced into thousands of pounds of debt to restrict parental responsibility, or they face compromising on the safety of their children.
Since the beginning of the family’s campaign, the Government have stated that there is already scope for courts to exercise powers
“to effectively remove all parental powers and authority in appropriate cases.”
However, the Government are missing the point. Jade’s family and friends are already aware of the law as it stands and the current process of restricting parental responsibility, but they, and we, are saying that the process is wrong. The onus should be on the convicted murderer to prove they should have parental responsibility, rather than the family having to make the case for why that person should not. Jade’s law would be a simple, common-sense way of shifting the burden away from a victim’s family and friends, who have already suffered the anguish of the murder of their loved one. Jade’s law would put an end to the endless cycle of psychological torment, lengthy and costly court processes and the constant harrowing reminders that the current system puts on a victim’s family and friends.
Let us be clear: Jade’s law does not demand the automatic removal of parental responsibility for cases such as these; it demands an automatic suspension, giving the perpetrator the opportunity to go through the legal hoops themselves to prove that they should be entitled to those parental powers. The perpetrator will have to prove they have changed their ways and admitted to their crimes, and that they have gone on a long journey to have the right to be involved in their children’s lives, not the other way round.
The petitioners recognise that there are nuances. For instance, they recognise that there are specific circumstances where it would be right to exempt someone convicted of killing the other parent from an automatic suspension of parental responsibilities. These would include where a convicted person could prove that there was a history of domestic abuse in their relationship and that, although the murder cannot be condoned, the murder trial concluded that provocation was a mitigating factor. However, the principle of shifting the burden of proof is the key message that we are sending the Government today.
Obtaining a special guardianship order can cost thousands and thousands of pounds, and that is assuming that the parent gives consent in the first place. That is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to achieve; where a family member is willing and able to take care of children, we should support them to do so, not put barriers in their way. We should not be making it more difficult for children to be looked after by their family rather than the state. First, being cared for by their family is the best and safest option for children, as they already know them and their routines. Secondly, a child being looked after by the state should never be the preferred first option. The process currently makes it easier for children to be looked after by the state, at significant cost, than by members of their family. In my view and that of the constituents of Wrexham, that is wrong.
The safety and wellbeing of a child are always paramount. I was a nurse and social worker for 27 years, so I have first-hand experience of children being removed from their homes and placed in temporary accommodation that lasts year after year. From many years of seeing this, I know that there is no substitute for a child being raised by their family in a safe and loving home. If all necessary safeguards and checks have been done, and this arrangement can be accommodated, it absolutely should be. Of course, there should be a presumption that if one parent murders another, parental responsibility is removed.
My concern with automatically removing parental responsibility is that we need to have processes in place to deal with the gap in care and decision making. At the moment, the process for handing parental responsibility to family members is too laborious, costly and stressful. We need to make allowances for that or make the process easier, so that children are not automatically cared for by the state when they do not need to be. Local authorities need to be more supportive of families applying for a special guardianship order. However, where the state is needed—remembering that health and social care is devolved in Wales—the Welsh Government need to ensure that councils are adequately funded, so that children always have timely and appropriate care and do not fall between the gaps. Where there are family members who are fit, willing and able to make decisions for the children, that option should always be the priority.
The only mechanism a child’s primary care givers currently have to challenge the perpetrator’s right to parental responsibility is through the legal system. A court can terminate a father’s parental responsibility on the grounds of their behaviour, but that happens only in exceptional circumstances, where there is proof that the father’s retention of that responsibility—I say “father” as a shorthand—would be detrimental to the child’s welfare. As I understand it, that has only ever happened four times in England and Wales.
Families are not always willing to put themselves through the extra trauma of attending a court hearing and having to relive the worst time of their lives, with their version of events placed under the microscope yet again. Facing the person who killed or abused their loved one—or abused them—and looking that person in the eye is often very difficult. They might also be fearful that the perpetrator will retaliate in whatever way they can if the court removes the rights, especially if they will be released from prison before the child turns 18. It takes a lot of courage to take a violent perpetrator to court while knowing the risks, and it is easy to see why many would be put off attending court at all. As we have heard, spiralling court backlogs and cuts to legal aid make the process more agonising for the families.
The main thing I want to talk about today is the work of the charity Children Heard and Seen, which supports children with a parent in prison. The primary focus—this is what differentiates it from other charities—is on the interests of the child. A lot of the organisations that work with prisoners’ families focus very much on the rights of the prisoner, and there is an assumption that contact with the family is in the prisoner’s interests; because we know, for example, that such contact means far less risk of reoffending.
It often shocks people to learn that there is no system for recording when a child’s parent goes into prison. Sometimes it is picked up in pre-sentence reports, although the parent will not always admit that they have a child because they worry about them being taken into care. Social services might already be involved with the family, or they might become involved if they suspect that the children are the direct victims of the parent’s crime, such as child sexual abuse, but we often find that social services—once they realise the children were not the victims and perhaps other children were—just disappear from the scene.
There is no system for routinely informing children’s services at the council or the children’s school, or for monitoring the children’s wellbeing during a parent’s imprisonment. The data is also hard to come by. One figure is used quite a lot—that 312,000 children are affected from year to year. I think that is probably on the high side, but it is impossible to tell. Many children are off the radar, despite potentially being at risk, or very vulnerable and needing support.
Children Heard and Seen runs a support group for carers who look after children affected by interparental homicide. It also supports families who continue to experience harassment or coercive control, despite the perpetrator being in prison. That includes domestic violence cases. I have heard from the charity about the strategies that domestic abusers use to manipulate their ex-partners while in prison, from using illicit burner phones to breach restraining orders, to refusing divorce papers and getting friends or neighbours to harass and intimidate them.
Services supporting victims might tell them they are safe once their former partner is in prison, but that is not always the case. Children Heard and Seen says that allowing a violent offender parental responsibility gives them the opportunity to control their child, ex-partner or family from within the prison walls. On the Children Heard and Seen website, there are quite a few blog posts by people who have been affected by a parent or a partner going into prison.
To cite one case, a mother applied for passports to take her children on holiday after a difficult few years that led up to the father’s imprisonment. Because both parents had parental responsibility, she needed his signature to complete the application. He was given the paperwork by the prison officers, but refused to sign it, which meant the family could not travel and the mother lost every penny she had paid towards the holiday. Of course, the father would not have been able to join them on holiday, but it was not about the children at all; it was just another way to pull the strings in his family’s life and exercise control over his former partner, despite the physical distance between them.
A perpetrator of domestic abuse might be restricted from contacting their actual victim—such as the mother, in this case—if there is a restraining order in place. However, if they have children together, it is easy for the perpetrator to use that child as a way to stay present in the abused partner’s life. Little can be done to stop them calling or writing to their children. As has been said, family services often encourage prisoners to stay in touch in such situations, as it is seen as being in the prisoner’s interest. There is also a belief that a child must want to see their parent who is in prison and must be missing them dreadfully, despite having witnessed a lot of abuse at home, and actually being fearful of the parent, and, in some ways, relieved that they have been removed from the household.
The perpetrator can use this contact to say that they will only see the children if the mother brings them to the prison, which, if the child wants to see the parent, is a way of exercising control. They can also make veiled threats through written letters. I cannot imagine how chilling it must be for an ex-partner to have to read out letters from their abuser to their children, in which the abuser may say he is getting stronger in prison and counting down the days until he sees their mum again, or which contain drawings of the children’s favourite film characters holding knives. We need a case-by-case approach, where services work with families to take a more active role in determining when contact is appropriate.
As of 2019, men made up 95% of the prison population. A far higher proportion of men are in prison for serious offences, so it is fair to assume that far more fathers are in prison than mothers. The flipside of that is the extra layer of complexity if a mother is arrested for a serious offence. Societal expectations about a mother’s natural role as a primary care giver can lead to the assumption that they should automatically keep parental responsibility. As I understand it, courts cannot legally terminate a mother’s parental responsibility, although it can, in rare cases, be limited.
It is important to remember the key principle of the Children Act 1989, which is that the welfare of the child is paramount. A child’s right to safety and protection from harm overrides all other legal considerations. How can the welfare of the child be paramount if their imprisoned parent can use contact with them to manipulate or control other family members?
I again congratulate Jade Ward’s family for fighting for this change. I hope today’s discussion takes us a step further in resolving these issues.
Justice was served and was seen to be served swiftly. But was it? Of course, seeing that vile wretch of a human carted off for at least 25 years is justice in one respect, but a lingering problem remains, which we must address. I commend Mr Duggan, the family friend who set up the petition. I am not sure whether he is aware that it attracted signatures from every single one of the 650 constituencies in the UK, from the far reaches of Orkney and Shetland off the north coast of Scotland, down to St Ives in the south of England, on its way to more than 130,000 signatures, including 2,808 from my constituency of Delyn. Considering that Delyn’s numbers for national petitions are normally in their low teens, that is a great indication of the depth of feeling in our community about the issue.
Jade’s sons are now in the loving care of her family. I do not think there is a single person among us who can comprehend not only having to attend the funeral of their child, as Jade’s parents had to, but having to somehow hold everything together in the aftermath and provide a stable, loving home for their grandchildren.
The difficulties of being faced by the nature of the crime itself are compounded by the fact that the perpetrator has rights. We hear a lot about rights in this building, and how one person’s rights are being infringed in favour of someone else’s rights. In this case, the perpetrator’s rights are being held to have, in some way, some relevance. He has to be consulted; he can take decisions about where the children live, go on holiday or attend school. and he is kept up to date on their progress.
Just to be clear, we take away parental responsibility in cases of serious neglect and in cases of serious cruelty. What more neglectful action could there be than depriving four children of their mother? What more cruelty would we need to see than taking a young lady and murdering her in a brutal and vicious way while her children slept in their bedrooms next door?
I read the Government’s response to the petition when it passed 10,000 signatures and I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), in expressing my disappointment with that response. I appreciate the statement that we already have the means in existing law to take these steps, but as has already been mentioned several times, that is time-consuming and expensive, and puts even more strain on the victim’s family, who have to deal with an already impossible situation.
In a case in 2013 when parental responsibility was terminated because a father had been convicted of violently attacking a mother, it took years to terminate his rights—something that would have been obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense about them. In this case, we are talking about a violent murder. It should be an absolute no-brainer that the perpetrator should forfeit his parental rights immediately when convicted of such a horrific crime. There can be no greater cruelty. He should play no further part in the lives of these children. If I had my way, he would play no further part in society for the remainder of his natural life; for what he did, he should have been given a whole life sentence, not 25 years.
People might think that this happens extremely rarely in society, so I did a bit of digging. The House of Commons Library tells me that there were 542 homicides —murders—recorded in England and Wales in the 2020-21 fiscal year. In 414 of those cases, the relationship between victim and offender was known and of those cases, 67 were recorded as being committed by a partner or ex-partner. Assuming that figure carries through to the other cases where we do not know the relationship between victim and offender, that is 87 murders per year by partners or ex-partners where there may be children. To be clear for the record, that is not the number of confirmed cases where parental responsibility is a factor; it is just an estimate of the number of cases where it might be a factor. Potentially, there are 87 cases a year where the nightmare of a murder is compounded by the additional cruelty of the perpetrator controlling from prison the lives of the children. That is absolutely unconscionable. The statistics do not matter though. I would be making all the same arguments if there was just one family or 10,000 families who are affected. Currently, the law allows the status quo to persist unless a long and laborious process is carried out to change it.
A switch of priorities is required. As the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said earlier, put the burden back on the murderer. If someone is found guilty of murder, the suspension of parental rights should be made automatic at the date of conviction. Make him fight to get those rights back, rather than make the victim’s family fight to block him. Social services and the local authorities will already be intrinsically involved by that point, as there will inevitably be months between offence and conviction. The children will already be in the care of the remaining family or in a suitable foster placement, where that is appropriate. The law simply needs to be changed to give social services the power that they would have if, for example, both parents died.
I come back to the opening words of my speech. I try to avoid extremes of language, but in cases such as this one, in which one parent has unlawfully killed another, the perpetrators should be counted, for the purposes of parental responsibility, as having died as well. It seems to be a complete no-brainer that, rather than put the victim’s family through a horrendous process of trying to get parental responsibility removed, re-victimising them and keeping a killer in their lives, we should automatically remove the perpetrator.
We need to bear in mind that according to the Sentencing Council the starting point for the minimum time to be served in prison by an adult guilty of murder ranges from 15 years to 30 years, before taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the vast majority of cases will lead to a minimum of 15 years in prison for the perpetrator. By the time that sentence has been served, most children are likely to be over the age of 18, so I see no reason not to say that the perpetrator’s parental rights should be taken away at conviction and never restored, unless there is a specific and significant reason to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister can work out what “specific and significant” might mean—we will leave that up to the law writers. Should the children decide upon reaching adulthood that they want to have contact with the perpetrator, that of course remains their right, because there will no longer be an element of control over their lives.
The families of victims have suffered enough; there is no reason to prolong their suffering. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) said about some of the potential pitfalls that may occur in cases such as these. This is one of those instances where unintended consequences can have wide-ranging implications. We need to keep in mind that the best interests of the children are paramount every time. That said, I believe the change proposed is a simple one, steeped in common sense, that could be made through a relatively short Bill, and I implore the Minister to make it happen with all due speed.