UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • James Bevan – 2022 Speech on Adaptation and Net Zero

    James Bevan – 2022 Speech on Adaptation and Net Zero

    The speech made by Sir James Bevan, the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, in London on 8 November 2022.

    Introduction: reasons to be cheerful

    These are dark times. So let me start with something radical: optimism. The biggest of all challenges we face is the climate emergency. If we fix that we can fix anything. And I’m here today to tell you that not only can we fix the climate emergency and build a better world, but that we will.

    Now, the Environment Agency is an evidence-based organisation. And I try not to say things I don’t mean. So let me give you a couple of facts to underpin that upbeat assertion.

    Fact one: it’s not rocket science. We know what the problem is: greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are warming the planet, changing the climate and producing higher seas and more extreme weather. We know what the stakes are if we don’t stop this: the survival of our species. And we know what the solution is: stop the emissions of the gases that are changing the climate and adapt our places, our infrastructure, our economy and our lifestyles so we can live safely and well in a climate-changed world. So: we know what we need to do. We just need to do it.

    Fact two: we are starting to do it. If we are to beat the climate challenge we need several things to happen at once.

    We need international cooperation. We cannot tackle the changing climate unless all the countries of the world work together, because the causes and consequences of climate change are global. And we are seeing that global cooperation, through the UN process that has set targets for all countries to meet and which will be taken further forward in Egypt later this month.

    We need national action. Governments around the world are taking that action, including here, where successive UK governments have shown strong leadership. The 2008 Climate Change Act was the first time a major economy set legal limits to reduce its own emissions. In 2019 the UK became the first major economy to pass laws to end its contribution to global warming by getting to Net Zero by 2050.

    We need businesses to play a central role. That’s because economic activity – mostly private sector – is the source of most of the carbon that is changing our climate, and because most of the power, resources, knowledge and innovation needed to turn that around is in the private sector. And we are seeing businesses step up to the plate, partly because it’s the right thing to do but mostly because it’s the smart thing to do. Businesses which are part of the solution to the climate crisis will ultimately outperform and outlast those which are part of the problem.

    And finally we need ordinary people, each of us in our daily lives, to change how we think and behave. And that is happening too. Around the world people are waking up to the reality of climate change, adapting how they live their own lives to help reduce its extent and impact, and – critically – demanding that their own governments take action. That is not just happening in developed countries: people in developing countries are even more badly affected by climate change than we are, and they are demanding change. And it’s not just happening in democracies like ours: authoritarian countries are also experiencing this popular demand. Dictators know that staying in power ultimately requires them to address the concerns of their own people.

    So the second big fact is this: that the things that need to be true for us to tackle climate change successfully – international action, national government action, business action, popular action – are true. Does that mean that we will definitely succeed? No. But does that mean that we will succeed if we sustain this coalition, maintain this momentum, and build on it to go further and faster? Yes.

    And we can and are doing that. Let me give you some examples from my own organisation, the Environment Agency.

    Strategy

    Organisations need to know what they are for. It’s the job of their leaders to define that and make sure the organisation does it. As they teach aspiring CEOs at Harvard Business School, the main thing is to make sure that the Main Thing really is the main thing.

    And at the Environment Agency we have made tackling climate change the Main Thing, and put it at the heart of everything we do. Our current strategy – EA2025 – sets the organisation’s strategic goals. The first of those is making our nation resilient to climate change. We put tackling climate at the very top of the list because without it we know we won’t achieve our other strategic goals: healthy air, land and water; green growth and a sustainable future.

    Action: Net zero/mitigation

    We are taking action to reduce the pace and extent of climate change by reducing our own and others’ greenhouse gas emissions.

    We regulate the carbon and other emissions of most industries, businesses and farms in this country. Since 2010 we have cut the emissions of greenhouse gases from the sites we regulate by 50%.

    We administer the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which caps and will over time further reduce the emissions of heavy industry, aviation and other significant producers of greenhouse gases.

    And we are trying to walk the walk ourselves with our own commitment to make the Environment Agency and our whole supply chain a Net Zero emitter. by 2030. In 2017/18 our carbon emissions totalled 32,450 tonnes, mostly from pumping water and pouring concrete to build flood defences. By the end of last year (2021/22) we had got that figure down to 20,485 tonnes, a cut of more than a third. Meanwhile we are offsetting more of our remaining emissions through tree planting and creating wetlands and new habitat.

    Action: Adaptation/building back better

    Everyone talks about net zero, and I just have. That’s important: the lower our carbon and other emissions, the lower the extent and rate of climate change. But climate change is already happening now and will keep on happening. Even if we stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases tonight, those that have occurred over the last two hundred or so years since the Industrial Revolution mean that the climate will still continue to change. Which is why the other side of the climate coin – adaptation to make us more resilient in a climate changed world – is just as important as the mitigation which Net Zero provides.

    The EA is active here too. We build, own and operate most of the nation’s flood defences, including the Thames Barrier which is keeping us in this room safe right now. Those defences are helping us adapt to the changing climate and they work – over the last decade or so hundreds of thousands of people, homes and businesses in this country have been spared the trauma and loss of flooding because of our defences. We will keep on building and maintaining them, using natural flood risk management methods – tree planting, creating wetlands and storing water upstream to slow the flow downstream, etc – wherever we can.

    And we play a major part in helping create better and more resilient places across the country through our statutory planning role, where we work with developers and local authorities to plan, design and deliver places which are not only better adapted to a changing climate but better places overall for people and wildlife to live.

    As a species facing a climate changed world it’s not an exaggeration to say that we must adapt or die. But the point is not just to survive. If we adapt right we can thrive too. That’s because climate adaptation offers all of us, including every single business, a world of new opportunities. There are economic opportunities: to innovate and drive growth, and many companies are seizing those.

    But the most exciting opportunity of all is the opportunity to create a better world: to build back better when flooding or drought damages homes and businesses; to create cleaner, greener cities which are more beautiful and better to live in than the ones we have now; to ensure that when it rains heavily our roads and railways don’t grind to a halt and our sewage systems don’t flush directly into rivers; to enhance nature at the same time as we lock up more carbon; and so on.

    Conclusion

    Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the nuclear bomb, said that “The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true”. I guess on that definition I’m neither an optimist or a pessimist. I’d like to think I am a realist. This is certainly not the best, nor the worst, of all possible worlds. But if we tackle the climate emergency effectively, and my pitch to you today is that we have started to do so, then I do think that we can and we will create the better world we all want.

  • Kerry McCarthy – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    Kerry McCarthy – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    The speech made by Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East, in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2022.

    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.

    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?

    Mark Tami

    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.

    Kerry McCarthy

    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.

    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.

  • Sarah Atherton – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    Sarah Atherton – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    The speech made by Sarah Atherton, the Conservative MP for Wrexham, in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2022.

    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.

    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.

  • Mark Tami – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    Mark Tami – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    The speech made by Mark Tami, the Labour MP for Alyn and Deeside, in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    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.

    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.

    Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)

    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?

    Mark Tami

    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.

    Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)

    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?

    Mark Tami

    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?

    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.

    Rob Roberts

    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?

    Mark Tami

    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.

    Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)

    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.

    Mark Tami

    I share in those words.

    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.

  • Mike Kane – 2022 Speech on Anti-Fouling on Merchant Shipping

    Mike Kane – 2022 Speech on Anti-Fouling on Merchant Shipping

    The speech made by Mike Kane, the Labour MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I had a few nice, dulcet things to say about the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but we do not have him in the Chair, so thank you for stepping into the breach; it is good of you.

    I welcome the Minister to his place. North West Durham is a beautiful part of the world, and I know Lanchester well. I am sure Members agree that in his first outing at an SI Committee, the Minister has done extraordinarily well. I am also sure that we all came into politics to discuss statutory instruments about barnacles on boats. I might have to take some anti-fouling measures myself; I will check my deodorant, because the Minister is about the fourth or fifth on my watch as shadow spokesperson for aviation and maritime. I wish him well in his time in office.

    That is enough of the niceties. The implementation of the convention will protect United Kingdom waters from harmful effects occurring from the use of prohibited substances, not just on UK ships but on non-UK ships visiting our waters. We will be supporting the draft order, as it is vital to take every step within our power to reduce the leaching of toxins into water.

    There are two major and interlinked environmental challenges in the marine industry: reducing emissions, and preventing the transfer of invasive species through biofouling. The formation of barnacles and other unwanted attachments, such as molluscs and algae, increase the consumption of fuel and slow ships down. In order to address that, ships’ hulls are coated with anti-fouling paints. Historically, coatings such as lime and arsenic were used to coat the hulls, but advances in chemistry enabled that problem to be resolved in a modern and effective way using metallic compounds.

    Bulk carriers, tankers and general cargo ships can spend long periods in ports being loaded and unloaded. Some might also be prevented from berthing for long periods by neap tides. In such cases, shallow water and temperate environments can lead to accelerated fouling. Many shipowners must deal with those challenging operations on a regular basis. Only today, there was an interesting article in The Times about the sequestration of Russian yachts and the need to keep them moving to stop their deterioration.

    Many ships have unpredictable trading patterns and must find cargoes where they can. That can mean that after operating in an area such as the north Atlantic with a coating chosen for that environment, the ship is switched to tropical zones and operation in different climates. The lower the predictability in operations, the higher the risk for fouling on the ship’s hull, potentially leading to increased fuel consumption and higher environmental impact.

    Coatings are usually developed for specific operating conditions, meaning that their anti-fouling performance is highly problematic. Any changes to the expected operating conditions mean that the coating will not perform as expected. The main factors that increase the probability of fouling are unfavourable conditions such as location and duration during long idling periods. Modern coatings have also been proven to leach into water, and the results have been devastating for marine ecosystems.

    As people have tried to do the right thing by coating ships to prevent the formation of barnacles and the attachment of other undesirables, and thereby reduce fuel burn, the issue has recurred with the newer metallic compounds. Those compounds have been proven to cause sex changes in whelks and deformation in oysters, and they may have entered the food chain.

    Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)

    This issue has a huge effect on the environment and on those who reside in our seas, particularly turtles, whales and larger fish, as well as whatever is attaching to ships. Whatever we do in our seas will ultimately have an effect on the food chain, as my hon. Friend said, and on those who inhabit that environment. Perhaps the Government will come back with something more concrete on the environment and the seas.

    Mike Kane

    Pope Francis reminded us in “Laudato Si’” that we are leaving an enormous pile of filth on this planet, so anything that we can do to reduce that filth and to ensure that it does not leach into the food chain of marine life is extraordinarily important. My hon. Friend is right to intervene to make that point.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    With your indulgence, Mrs Murray, I want to identify the problem of industrial fishing, which you will know a great deal about. It has precisely the same effect on the ecosystem that the hon. Gentleman talked about, and particularly on smaller sea creatures of the kind he mentioned. That is an aside, but it is relevant, given what we are discussing. I know that you will want to bring us back to the subject in hand.

    The Chair

    Absolutely. I think the shadow Minister would like to stick to the confines of the draft statutory instrument.

    Mike Kane

    Indeed I would, Mrs Murray. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right that marine life is important, and the draft order is part of that. The Minister knows of the marine biology problems along the coastline of North West Durham, although we do not know what the issue is just yet.

    A team at the University of Oldenburg’s Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment conducted a study on the matter, which was published in February 2021. The group is continuing its research, having found that most of the plastic particles in water samples taken from the German Bight—an area of the North sea that encompasses some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes—originate from binders used in marine paints. The hypothesis is that ships literally leave a kind of skid mark in the water, and that as a source of microplastics, it is of a significance similar to that of tyre wear particles from cars on land. I am sure that that will cross the Minister’s desk as part of his new portfolio with responsibility for roads.

    Of all plastic entering the ocean, 94% ends up on the seabed, where it will take centuries to degrade. In the process, it will release chemicals, microplastics and nano-plastics, all of which are harmful for marine life and for the ecosystem balance. With that in mind, will the Minister apprise me of which, if any, of the anti-fouling coatings are proven not to leach microplastics into the sea? We do not want to replace one pollutant with another.

    I notice that no consultation was done on this draft statutory instrument, but we broadly support its intention. However, we do not want to find ourselves here again in 20 years debating the leaching of microplastics into our waters.

  • Richard Holden – 2022 Statement on Anti-Fouling on Merchant Shipping

    Richard Holden – 2022 Statement on Anti-Fouling on Merchant Shipping

    The statement made by Richard Holden, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, in my first statutory instrument debate. The purpose of this order is to give the Government the powers that we need to implement in UK law amendments to the International Maritime Organisation’s 2001 convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships, which I shall now refer to as the convention. The order relies on powers under section 128(1)(e) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The draft order was laid before the House on 17 October this year. If approved, the powers in the order will be used to make a new statutory instrument next year to implement the convention amendments. The order will also allow the convention to be entirely re-implementable in regulations should that be necessary.

    Before continuing, I would like to give a small amount of background about what the Government have done regarding the convention and to outline the Government’s reasons for wanting to implement amendments to it. In doing so, I remind hon. Members that our purpose here today is to discuss the use of this order as a mechanism to provide the powers for implementation of the amendments to the convention, rather than to discuss the detail and implementation of the convention itself.

    The convention entered into force internationally on 17 September 2008, and the UK acceded to it in 2010. It aims to protect the marine environment and human health from the adverse effects of anti-fouling systems used by ships. An anti-fouling system is a coating, paint or surface treatment used by a ship to control or prevent the attachment of unwanted organisms to the ship’s hull. The convention addresses the harmful impacts of anti-fouling systems by prohibiting the use of certain substances in those systems. In 2021, the IMO adopted amendments to the convention to prohibit the use of a new compound in anti-fouling systems, and those will come into force on 1 January 2023.

    As the convention took effect 14 years ago, hon. Members may ask why we are now seeking powers to implement amendments to it. The reason is that the convention was implemented in the UK through a combination of a European Community regulation and the Merchant Shipping (Anti-Fouling Systems) Regulations 2009, but both instruments derive from EU powers and now comprise EU retained law. Consequently, implementing the convention amendments through the instruments would now require primary legislation. Therefore, to implement the amendments more efficiently in UK law, we will need to introduce an Order in Council to provide the powers required for this purpose.

    The Government consider implementation of the convention amendments in UK law an important step to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to comply with its international obligations and that our waters continue to be protected from the use of prohibited substances in the anti-fouling systems of visiting ships. The convention and its subsequent amendments were negotiated at the IMO by representatives of the Government, the shipping industry, and environmental interest groups. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency played an active role in negotiations at the IMO throughout the development of the convention and its amendments.

    The Government’s proposals for implementing the amendments to the convention by way of a new statutory instrument will be the subject of public consultation. The MCA will refine its proposals on the basis of any comments received. The amendments to the convention cannot be efficiently implemented into UK law unless the Government have the powers to do so. The draft order provides those powers.

    I will provide some information about the power we are relying on to make the draft instrument and, in turn, to implement the amendments to the convention. Section 128(1)(e) of the 1995 Act provides that His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom and relates to the prevention, reduction or control of pollution of the sea or other waters by matter from ships.

    The draft order will authorise the making of regulations by the Secretary of State to give effect to the convention, including amendments to it. Section 128 only allows for an order to be made in respect of a convention that has been ratified by the United Kingdom, which has acceded to the convention. To ensure that the United Kingdom can fulfil its international obligations, the amendments to the convention must be implemented. To ensure that the United Kingdom’s domestic law implements its international obligations, the Government intend that the United Kingdom will submit the draft order to the Privy Council. That will ensure that the regulations can be made.

    I have highlighted the importance of the Order in Council so that we can implement the amendments to this important convention for the environmental protection of our seas and waterways. The draft order is intended to ensure that the Government have the powers to implement the convention amendments into domestic law. It is fully supported by the UK Government. I therefore propose that the order be approved. It will enable the United Kingdom to play its part in protecting the biodiversity of our oceans and seas.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement on the Arts Council England 2023-2026 Investment Programme

    Michelle Donelan – 2022 Statement on the Arts Council England 2023-2026 Investment Programme

    The statement made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    Further to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on 23 February 2022, I would like to update the House on Arts Council England’s 2023-2026 investment programme. The provisional outcome of this competitive funding round has been communicated to applicants, and will see 990 national portfolio organisations and investment principles support organisations offered £446 million per annum in funding over the next three years.

    These provisional offers fulfil the ambitious and challenging targets set for Arts Council England by my predecessor. Specifically—including national lottery funding—these offers would see nearly an extra £45 million in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25 invested outside of London, rising to nearly £53 million extra in 2025-26. This will result in 215 new organisations being funded outside of London—a net increase of 135 organisations. This extra investment outside London is supported largely by the overall uplifts agreed by the Government at the comprehensive spending review, and Arts Council England decisions about its use of national lottery funding.

    DCMS worked with Arts Council England to agree on a list of 109 levelling up for culture places, which are areas identified as having historically low cultural engagement. The provisional funding offers that have been announced will increase the number of funded organisations in levelling up for culture places by 79%—from 107 to 192 organisations—and will increase the level of investment in levelling up for culture places by 95%, or £21.2 million per annum. This funding will play a vital role in fulfilling the Government’s intention to tackle cultural disparities, and ensure that everyone, wherever they live, has the opportunity to enjoy the incredible benefits of culture in their lives.

    Funding agreements will be finalised over the next few months, so are subject to change, but alongside the levelling-up progress that has been made, I would like to highlight the following:

    10% of all library services in England are now national portfolio organisations;

    20% more organisations will be funded to deliver work for children and young people, with a total of 79% of the portfolio delivering activity specifically for children and young people, up by six percentage points from the 2018-2022 portfolio;

    Improved diversity on boards;

    Overall more days of cultural activity provided.

    Finally, it should be noted that these are preliminary decisions which will be negotiated further with organisations. Arts Council England will need to work closely with organisations to review the aims previously submitted in their applications for this programme to ensure they are still achievable in the current economic context. In particular, my predecessor asked all organisations receiving more than £2 million per annum to work to increase their outreach to levelling up for culture places by 15% as a cohort. Given the economic challenges, this target will not apply for this funding round, noting the considerable outreach work these organisations are already doing.

    Arts Council England will also support organisations leaving the portfolio by providing transition funding, and I am glad to inform the House that it has been able to more than double the budget for this. This means that any organisation currently in the portfolio, but due to leave, will have the opportunity to apply for funding to support them until next October while they adjust to their changed income.

    I am sure Members across the House will be interested to see the outcomes in their local area, and I would direct them to the Arts Council website where all the provisional offers are listed.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2022 Statement on the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility

    Jeremy Hunt – 2022 Statement on the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility

    The statement made by Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stock of UK Government bonds (gilts) and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the Asset Purchase Facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities.

    On 28 September 2022, in line with the Bank’s financial stability objective, the APF carried out purchases of long-dated gilts to restore orderly market conditions. This was then expanded on 11 October to include index-linked gilts. As noted in the written ministerial statement of 12 October 2022 the authorised total size of the APF was increased from £866 billion to £966 billion at the time to allow for a time-limited intervention.

    Total gilt purchases under this financial stability operation reached £19.3 billion when the daily auctions ended as planned on 14 October. I have therefore agreed to reduce the authorised maximum size of the APF from £966 billion, as was agreed on 28 September 2022, to £886 billion. This reduction reflects the unused portion of the recent £100 billion financial stability related APF expansion.

    The Governor and I will continue to jointly agree the authorised maximum size of monetary policy related asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces, to reflect the size of the portfolio. This month a further reduction in the authorised maximum size of the APF will be agreed in relation to the ongoing unwind of assets acquired for monetary policy purposes.

    The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.

    There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.

    The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund (BEAPFF), from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

    A full departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.

  • Robin Walker – 2022 Question on Asylum Seekers Being Housed in Worcester

    Robin Walker – 2022 Question on Asylum Seekers Being Housed in Worcester

    The question made by Robin Walker, the Conservative MP for Worcester, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    One of the locations hosting migrants in my constituency is the Fownes Hotel, and notwithstanding the fact that I expressed concerns about its suitability, I was particularly concerned to hear from my council about a number of children being taken into care from that location. My right hon. Friend mentioned an incentive package for councils. I was told that such practice is putting an additional burden on an already overburdened children’s care system. Will he discuss with officials how to ensure that even when the children were not supposed to be at a particular location, support flows through to councils? The impression I have been left with by Worcestershire is that it is trying to do the right thing, but either was not aware of or was not receiving that support.

    Robert Jenrick

    I will certainly ensure that local authorities are better communicated with about the location of children to their area and the support that the Government are making available. I am holding a teleconference later this week with all local authority chief executives and leaders to listen to their views and to advise them of our steps. On the back of that, if we need to make changes to our processes, I will certainly try my best to do so.

  • Edward Leigh – 2022 Question on Asylum Seekers Being Housed in Grantham

    Edward Leigh – 2022 Question on Asylum Seekers Being Housed in Grantham

    The question asked by Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    This whole situation is a farce. There were recent reports that illegal migrants were being put up in a luxury rural hotel—a former stately home near Grantham—that normally charges £400 a night. Surely the easier and quicker that we make this whole process, the more people will come, especially since it is a complete pushover, with a large number of young Albanian men claiming modern slavery, which is ridiculous. Will the Minister confirm that the solution is to repeal the Human Rights Act, get out of the European refugee convention and repeal the Modern Slavery Act 2015, so that people can be detained when they arrive for being involved in an illegal activity and then deported?

    Robert Jenrick

    I, too, was disturbed to see images of the Stoke Rochford Hall Hotel, which is a luxurious setting and not the kind of hotel in which we want to see individuals being accommodated. We want to see decent but commonsensical treatment that does not create a further pull factor to the UK. The Home Secretary and I will review whether further changes are required. We start from the basic principle that treaties that the UK Government have entered into must work in the best interests of the British people.