Ellie Reeves
MP for Lewisham West and East Dulwich · Labour · United Kingdom
“I am very sorry to hear of the hon. Member’s constituent’s experience. If she wants to provide details of the case, I will raise it directly with the CPS. She is absolutely right that victims deserve timely justice. Delays can have a profound impact on victims.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are clear that it is firmly in the UK’s interests to remain a member of the European convention on human rights. The ECHR has allowed people to object when “do not resuscitate” orders are put on their beds without their consent, and it is the reason why victims of rapists such as John Warboys have been able to force the pol…”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The military base at Diego Garcia is critical for our national security, and for keeping people safe here in Britain. Our priority has always been clear: to secure the long-term, effective operation of that base.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Last month, I announced the national roll-out of the CPS victim transformation programme, including a universal service for all victims, and an enhanced service for domestic abuse survivors; an enhanced service is already offered to victims of rape.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I am deeply sorry to hear of Jodie and Julie’s experience. As part of our strategy to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, the Government will soon issue new statutory, multi-agency guidance on stalking, setting out a robust framework for the police, the CPS, local authorities an…”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Stalking in all its forms is a horrendous, life-shattering crime. In September, I spoke at the national multi-agency conference, at which the Government and the third sector came together to discuss this issue; that involved analysing a non-domestic stalking case.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,351 lines on record for Ellie Reeves, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 8 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Clause 37 will allow the Secretary of State to make their own findings of fact, without being bound by previous findings of the Parole Board. The clause also sets out what evidence the Secretary of State must consider in reaching their decision. I have already set out at some length, when speaking on proposed new clauses 22 and 23, why I consider the Secretary of State to be the wrong person to make parole decisions. I will not repeat those concerns, as they are already on the record. It is clear that under clause 37 the Justice Secretary, unlike the Parole Board, will not have had the benefit of interviewing the prisoner before making a decision about their parole. They could authorise someone to conduct an interview on their behalf, but are not compelled to do so.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 38, page 37, line 18, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We can see that there could be a case for a merits-based appeal mechanism from the Parole Board, but in our view that should be to the Court of Appeal criminal division rather than to the Upper Tribunal.” The letter goes on: “It was pointed out to us that the appeal, particularly on merits, will logically have to be by way of a re-hearing and may frequently involve taking oral evidence. The Upper Tribunal has no experience in or procedures for dealing with this, whereas the Court of Appeal criminal division does.” I hope that the Government will reflect on that, and reconsider whether the upper tribunal is the appropriate forum for any appeal, or whether the criminal division of the Court of Appeal would be better suited.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He made the point that an appeal can be made on judicial review grounds, which requires a permission stage, or on the merits, which does not require permission. As a result, it is likely that any prisoner who appeals the Secretary of State’s decision will do so on the merits. That will then effectively require a rehearing, which the upper tribunal would be ill equipped to deal with. A letter from the Justice Committee to the Lord Chancellor stated: “While there is no doubt that it is right that the final decision on release should lie with an independent court or tribunal, the proposed appeal mechanism in the Bill is flawed.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A more appropriate mechanism for dealing with appeals against decisions by the Secretary of State would be via the Court of Appeal. That view is shared by many. In evidence to the Justice Committee, his honour Peter Rook KC, a former Old Bailey judge and current vice chair of the Parole Board, outlined that, given the likely need for the calling of evidence from witnesses, any appeal should go to the Court of Appeal criminal division. That is because, unlike the upper tribunal, the Court of Appeal criminal division has experience of such matters. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), made a powerful contribution on Second Reading.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have already explained at length why clauses 35 and 36 do not set out the right approach. The Government may be determined to push forward with them, but I am concerned that the upper tribunal may not be the correct forum to hear an appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deny parole. The amendments seek to change the approach, so that any appeal would be to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. Unlike criminal courts or the Parole Board, the upper tribunal has no experience of assessing the risk of harm to the public. It is not a fact-finding body; rather, it is there to deal with points of law. Therefore it is unclear why the Government believe that the upper tribunal would be best placed to make such assessments.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why he considers the upper tribunal to be the correct forum. Although I have heard what he has said, we do still have concerns about the appropriateness of the upper tribunal to hear these cases, particularly because most of the appeals are likely to be on substantive grounds. However, we do not propose to press the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have set out at length why I do not think that the Secretary of State’s veto is the right approach, but if the Government press ahead with this aspect of the Bill, it is of course absolutely right that there is an appeal mechanism. It is also right that it should be possible to appeal on judicial review grounds or on the substantive merits. As I have said, I anticipate that most appeals will be on the merits, as that will not require a permission stage.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am also concerned by the written evidence from the Prison Reform Trust about the Bill, in which it outlines that, currently, “victims can make representations to the Parole Board on the content of licence conditions which the board must have regard to.” There appears to be no mechanism for that to happen under these clauses, which is a regressive step for a Bill that is meant to be about victims. I hope that as the Bill progresses the Minister will look at these concerns and outline how the Secretary of State will be resourced to do a task that is normally a matter for experienced Parole Board members, how they will ensure that this does not weaken victims’ current rights, and how the public will be kept safe.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The risk is that this process will make it impossible for the Secretary of State to give individual cases the same scrutiny as the Parole Board panel. In reality, therefore, they will be heavily dependent on the probation service’s advice on licence conditions. The danger is that an overstretched probation officer may wish to avoid requirements that are too onerous in themselves or, where they have a good relationship with the prisoner, may recommend licence conditions that are insufficiently cautious. My concern with these clauses is that important licence terms could be missed, which could lead to the public’s being made less safe.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is difficult to see how the Secretary of State will be able to give individual cases the same level of scrutiny as experienced Parole Board panels. Equally, the upper tribunal has no experience of undertaking this kind of work, nor is it clear whether it has the resources to do so effectively. That also raises the question of how the Secretary of State will be resourced to perform this role, as making informed decisions about what licence conditions are needed is a complex and highly important task. For example, some licence conditions are standard, but others are made at the discretion of the Parole Board. These discretionary conditions will often be closely related to the board’s assessment of the prisoner’s relationship with his probation officer. In practice, they set requirements for the probation officer as well as the prisoner.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have already set out why we do not think that the Secretary of State referral is the right approach. These clauses kick in if the Secretary of State orders a release following a referral, or if the upper tribunal orders a release following a refusal by the Secretary of State. I am concerned as to the appropriateness of either the Secretary of State or the upper tribunal setting licence conditions, given the lack of experience that either one has in doing so. Setting licence conditions is a key part of the Parole Board’s responsibilities; licence conditions are crucial to public safety and confidence. It is a matter that, aided by recommendations from the probation service, the board devotes a great deal of time and thought to.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Law Society’s written evidence states: “It is not clear what the ‘greatest possible weight’ will mean in practice and will require interpretation by judges. We are concerned that this will lead to an increase in litigation challenging this new standard.””
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have to have regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach.” —[ Official Report , 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 604.] I think that sums it up really well. Clause 45 directs courts to give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing risk to the public when a question arises as to whether a person’s rights under the ECHR have been breached in relation to a release decision.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Moreover, it is precisely in custodial institutions like prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state.” In its written evidence to the Committee, the Bar Council stated: “There is no evidence of any systemic impairment due to the HRA of the Parole Board’s ability to make high-quality, safe, decisions about prisoners—no statistical analysis of recidivism/public safety concerns from prisoners released due to interpretation of legislation in line with Convention principles.” In his speech on Second Reading, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said: “Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prison Reform Trust said: “The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is worth mentioning that the Government’s Bill of Rights, which sought to rip up our Human Rights Act, has thankfully been dropped. A vast amount of parliamentary time and, I am sure, Government bandwidth was taken wrestling with that Bill, until the decision to scrap it was rightly made. My concern is that the clauses may be another way for the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), to dilute our human rights framework through the backdoor. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the European convention on human rights as far as is possible. The clauses would disapply section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. A number of groups have rightly raised concerns about that.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If this clause is used to appoint new members with law enforcement backgrounds, we could have a situation where top tier cases are heard by newer members who, by definition, are inexperienced in making parole decisions. Ms Corby made that point in her evidence: “It is not the way we currently do things—to put our newest members on our most serious cases. People tend to work their way into the cases”. With all that in mind, I hope the Minister recognises the risk. I am interested to hear his response and how those unintended consequences will be mitigated.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“54, Q106.] The risk of undoing current practice was also outlined by Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board, at the Justice Committee’s evidence session. She said that “we deal with 2,000 top-tier cases a year. If we had to put a person with a law enforcement background on every single case, I think that could build delays into the system.” The Prison Reform Trust also said it shared that view in its written evidence to this Committee. In addition to delays, the other issue is experience. I know that the Minister agrees that complex parole cases demand particular care, and require the skills and experience of individual board members.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Ministry of Justice’s 2019 review of the Parole Board rules states: “Restrictions on which panel members can hear particular types of case have gradually been lifted over…to allow greater flexibility and timeliness in listing the right cases for the right panel members and we do not wish to undo the improvements this has achieved.” That point was echoed by Martin Jones, the Parole Board chief executive, in this Committee’s oral evidence sessions, when he said that “the Parole Board is a court in law. In reality, it is best for the court to decide who are the appropriate people on cases, depending on the complexity”. –– [ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important to note from the outset that police officers already serve on the Parole Board, alongside other members with expertise, including judges, psychologists, psychiatrists and others. They are an incredibly important part of the board’s membership. I would be interested to know from the Minister what evidence there is for this change and what he hopes to achieve by mandating that at least one member with law enforcement experience sits on top tier cases. In the Justice Committee’s evidence session on part 3 of the Bill, solicitor Andrew Sperling said: “I am not sure what the evidence of need is here. Is it being suggested that there is a deficiency in Parole Board decision making that will be corrected by importing more police officers?” The mandating seems to be a backward step.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that, Ms Corby argued that “the chair of the Parole Board needs more protection than pretty much any other chair of any arm’s length body.” For those reasons, the Justice Committee concluded in its letter to the Justice Secretary that there should not be a statutory power to enable the Secretary of State to dismiss the chair of the board in the manner and terms proposed. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about these points and what reassurances he can give me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“55, Q107.] Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board, stated at the Justice Committee’s evidence session: “My concern is that if it is used simply because the Parole Board has made a controversial decision, that potentially impacts on the independence of the Parole Board.” That is because parole decisions, by their very nature, are sensitive and controversial. Removing the chair because a decision in an individual case is unpopular would likely influence the panel’s decision making, thereby undermining the independence of the board in its judicial decisions.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East. First, it is right that if someone is not up to the job as chair of the Parole Board, there should be a way of removing them—the public would not expect any less—but clause 47 goes a great deal further than that. Amendment 120 seeks to address that. In his evidence to the Committee, Martin Jones, the Parole Board chief executive, stated: “There is already a protocol in place that would allow a Secretary of State to follow a process in a fair way to remove the chair of the Parole Board if they believe they are not fulfilling their functions.” –– [ Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In evidence to the Justice Committee, Professor Shute said: “it is…hard to lead the board unless you have experience of sitting on panels…I think it is helpful, if you are going to lead the board, to have first-hand experience of sitting on panels, but this provision is going to prohibit a chair from doing so.” It its letter to the Justice Secretary, the Justice Committee concluded that “prohibiting the Chair from sitting on cases would potentially undermine their leadership of the Board, and make the role less attractive to suitable candidates in the future.”Clause 47 seems broadly sensible, but I urge the Minister to consider and reflect on those points.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about Caroline Corby and her dedicated leadership of the Parole Board, and I thank her and all the other members of the Parole Board for their important work. Most of what the Minister has set out is broadly sensible. I have already set out my concerns when speaking to amendment 120, but I want to briefly add that clause 47 also prohibits the chair of the Parole Board from being involved in individual parole cases. That seems to unnecessarily hinder the chair in their role.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I therefore welcome these clauses, which will put appropriate legislation in place to ensure that something like it does not happen again.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note the recent case of serial killer Levi Bellfield, who is serving a whole-life sentence for the murders of Marsha McDonnell, Amelie Delagrange and Millie Dowler, as well as the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy. He also had a long history of domestic violence and remains a suspect in other crimes. News that he has met someone, and has been able to marry her behind bars, has rightly been met with public outrage. I can only imagine how the news has impacted Bellfield’s victims and their families, and it is concerning that he was introduced to his now wife by a fellow serial killer and was able to propose marriage in the prison visitors’ centre. Under current legislation there are no sufficient powers to prevent that from happening.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to support clauses 48, 49 and 50. At present, 66 prisoners are serving whole-life sentences in England and Wales. Those sentences reflect some of the most despicable crimes imaginable—ones so serious that the prisoner will never be released from prison. For families trying to rebuild their lives after the devastation of a crime caused by that group of offenders, hearing news that they have been able to conduct a relationship in prison is unimaginable. There is also often a safeguarding issue. Given the history of the prisoner, it is right that their motivation in pursuing a marriage is examined, as we know that such people often have great capacity for coercion and exploitation.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Rather, they would support the victim on specific issues that arise where legal expertise is required, from the moment they report their case to the police right through to trial. Importantly, they would be available free of charge.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important to outline that, given the complexity and range of the legal issues that survivors encounter, legal advocates need to be trained lawyers, as opposed to independent sexual violence advocates. They need to be able to properly advise survivors on the issues they encounter, as well as conduct legal casework, such as reading police and CPS documents and preparing written representations. They have to be in an organisation entirely separate from any criminal justice bodies, to uphold their independence and, if necessary, liaise directly with the police and the CPS on the survivors’ behalf. However, we are not proposing that legal advocates assist victims at trial or represent them before the court. We are also not proposing that they play a role in the day-to-day communications between police and survivors.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Academic research by Dr Olivia Smith of Loughborough University shows that expanding the roll-out of the pilot to every police force in England and Wales would cost just over £4 million a year. The Home Office estimates that the emotional and wellbeing consequences alone of sexual offences, and the inadequate responses to those crimes, cost £9.8 billion. Given that, and the bulk of research showing that legal advocacy improves criminal justice satisfaction, health and employment outcomes, the cost of an independent legal advocate scheme is far from prohibitive, and would likely make huge savings elsewhere across the economy. I turn to the remit of legal advocates.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They do brilliant work, but can assist only a very limited number of survivors. They cannot deliver the full service that survivors often require, so there is a significant level of unmet need. A pilot scheme of legal advocates was trialled in Northumbria between 2018 and 2020. The survivors who took part gave positive feedback, as did most of the police and prosecutors directly involved with the lawyers in the scheme. One survivor, Susan, said that “100% in all of this the saving grace has been” the lawyer, “without a doubt, without a doubt my saving grace”. Police and prosecutors were also clear that the accused’s right to a fair trial was not affected. Overall, the pilot found that the legal advocates substantially improved best practice in the police and CPS, and led to an improved victim experience.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The alleged offender has a defence lawyer acting and advocating in their interests, but the rape victim has no such support, and that causes many survivors to drop their cases. An independent scheme of legal advocates would help to tackle that. This proposal would not give victim survivors party status in legal proceedings, and would not conflict with fair trial rights and the duty of the Crown to act in the public interest. It is important to note that independent legal advice schemes for victims already exist in many other jurisdictions, including many European countries, Australia, Japan, California and Ireland. The UK is an outlier in that respect. As it stands, the only specialist independent legal advice for rape survivors in the UK comes from the groups Centre for Women’s Justice and Rights of Women.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why one of the things that survivors tell me time and again is that they feel the criminal justice system is working against them, compounding the trauma they have already suffered. Given the pressures, it is no wonder that nearly 70% of survivors who report a rape drop out of the justice system. I recognise that the Minister has outlined the fact that he is looking at independent legal advice for rape victims, specifically in relation to disclosure. Although I welcome that, the remit needs to be much wider. Too often, the interests of rape victims are not properly protected in the criminal justice process. When that happens, rape survivors need somewhere to turn to get expert legal help, and that is where legal advocates come in.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 14 seeks to introduce independent legal advocates for rape victims. Although it is always awful to be a victim of any crime, seeking justice after a rape is particularly traumatic, not just because of the desperately low chance of the offender being charged—it is currently just 1.6%—or because rape cases take the longest of all crimes to get to court, but because rape and other sexual offences are the only criminal offences in which the victim’s credibility can become the focal point of the police investigation and the trial. In no other crime would the complainant’s lifestyle, online presence or sexual history be considered relevant to a jury. Coupled with the fact that victims have no right to their own legal support, that can mean that they find themselves trying to navigate a complex and opaque system on their own.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his comments. I take some comfort from him saying that he is unable to support the new clause “at this stage” and that it is premature rather than something that is not being looked at. It is an incredibly important issue. I note that the Law Commission is looking at it. I would not want to see the issue kicked into the long grass.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to the personal data to which subsection (1) applies. (3) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to— (a) persons providing relevant victim support services, as defined by section 12 of this Act; (b) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; and (c) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer. (4) In this section “immigration control” means United Kingdom immigration control and includes any United Kingdom immigration control operated in a prescribed control zone outside the United Kingdom.”— (Sarah Champion.) Brought up, and read the First time .”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would very much welcome that, and I am grateful for the offer. I will not press the new clause to a vote in the light of what the Minister has said. He acknowledges on the rape review that came out yesterday that there is more to do. I gently suggest that this is one of the key things that could be done so that we start to see some real progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 20 Data-sharing for immigration purposes: exemption for victims “(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim, as defined by section 1 of this Act, that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance under the Victims Code is not used for the maintenance of immigration control.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Any rights should have been taken away from him the moment he took away their mother…You cannot put into words the added worry and the stress because of him. It means we still can’t move on.””
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Jade’s killer was given a life sentence last year, with the judge calling the attack “merciless”. However, Jade’s family were horrified to find that their daughter’s killer retained rights over the children. Jade’s parents said that her killer started to cause ripples not long after being sentenced, asking to see the boys’ school reports and attendance notes. They were then informed by social workers that, if they wanted to take the children on holiday, he would have to be consulted, and that he still had the power to take decisions on medical treatment. Jade’s mother said: “He had lost control of Jade so he did what he did, and now he has still got control because he is controlling the boys and controlling us and it is horrific…He is in prison, but his presence is still looming.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For some, that results in fear—they might themselves be in danger—and for others, in decisions made not in their best interest but rather to deprive them of opportunities out of sheer spite. Children Heard and Seen, a charity that supports children impacted by parental imprisonment, reports that the retention of the father’s rights is a significant traumatising factor in those children’s lives. Children need stability, and their guardians having to fight in the family courts runs counter to that. As I have outlined, our new clause would end that. I now turn to the case that helped shape the new clause: that of Jade Ward. Jade was 27. She had recently left her former partner when she was murdered by him in her home. Her four young sons were all in the house at the time.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some abusive fathers even try to block maternal family members from gaining custody of the children they love, leaving the children to grow up in the care system instead. That has left some families unable to see their loved nieces, nephews or grandchildren—for months on end, as legal battles go through the courts—at the exact time when they are needed most to support the children. The fact that a convicted killer’s parental responsibility cannot be suspended without protracted legal battles is a huge injustice. What greater dereliction of duty towards a child can there be than to rob them of their mother and burden them with a lifetime of trauma? Many are raised knowing that the perpetrator retains intimate knowledge of and access to their lives, which undermines their recovery.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In those cases, the children are dealing not just with grief, but with the loss of their parent—the mother is almost always the victim in such cases—and with the feelings of anger, shame and confusion that accompany having a father who has committed such an abhorrent act. Retaining parental responsibility, however, allows those men to continue to exercise control over the children and surviving family from their prison cells. That results in an indefensible situation—his permission must be sought for things such as schooling or medical treatment, or before the children can be taken abroad. That forces the children’s carers, who are often the only stability the children have left, to engage with the killer and his wishes. That can be hugely distressing and, in turn, can potentially destabilise the children’s recovery.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Instead, the killer’s parental responsibility would be automatically removed for the period they were in prison, and the onus placed on them to go through the legal hoops to prove that they deserve that responsibility. That would apply to all those found guilty of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent. The loss of a parent to violence creates deep trauma. We have no official figures for how many children lose their mothers in that way, but we know that two women are killed by their partner or former partner each week. One trauma specialist I spoke with, who has worked with hundreds of children whose mothers were killed by their fathers, estimates that about 50 mothers are killed by the father per year.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Under the law, if a father is found guilty of killing his children’s mother, he retains parental responsibility over the children. That means that after ending their mother’s life and destroying the children’s lives, such killers still have power over their children—power to be involved in decisions affecting their lives and power to continue controlling and abusive behaviour over the family of their victim. The new clause would end that dreadful situation. The new clause would reverse the situation in which the onus is on the victim’s family to prove, often through protracted legal proceedings, why the perpetrator’s parental responsibility should be revoked.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have spoken to countless people about this situation and frankly, when I say that a dad can retain from his prison cell parental responsibility when he has killed the kids’ mum, they look aghast. They cannot make sense of it; it does not make sense. That is why this new clause is so important.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s first point, yes, families can go through the family court to get a special guardianship order. I will say a bit more about that later. However, it puts the onus on the victims’ families to go through protracted, costly and often opaque family law processes for that to happen. That can take years.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Failing to do so is a vote for more delay, leaving vulnerable children unprotected and victims’ families having to fight through the backlogged courts. I hope that Government Members will vote to support Jade’s law today.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 21 is about doing what is best for the children left behind: safeguarding their rights, protecting them from abusers and trying to give them the best possible means to thrive. It is about valuing the rights of children over those of abusers. One year on from the petition for Jade’s law, it is indefensible that men who kill their partners, often after long periods of abuse, are still able to exercise control over the surviving children and their guardians from their prison cell. I note the Justice Minister’s comments today outlining his support after months of campaigning from Labour. I also note his comment that he is looking to find a quicker way to cut off parental rights for killers. Today is that opportunity with new clause 21. By voting for it, we can end an indefensible situation and truly make this a Bill for victims.”
House of Commons11 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗