---

Crime and Policing Bill

I rise to speak to new clause 123 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley).

I have to say, I am a little surprised that I am having to speak to this new clause today, and I implore the Minister to give it due consideration, not least because it was presented on a cross-party basis in the previous Parliament by Baroness Harman. In fact, on the day it was debated, Baroness Harman, who had done all the work on it, was away due to a personal matter, and it was spoken to by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is, of course, now the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls. The Minister will be aware that this issue directly concerns a constituent of mine, whose experience I will speak to later. I really encourage the Minister to give the new clause due consideration and, if it is not taken up, perhaps she can clarify in her remarks why there is a delay. Every engagement I have had with the Department has suggested that such a provision is well on its way, so I would be curious to know about that.

For the benefit of the House, the new clause seeks to remove the parental rights of convicted sex offenders. It is unconscionable to my constituents that children could be subject to living with a sex offender because the sex offender is their parent. It is reprehensible that the law allows that to happen. It allows convicted criminals who have committed the most heinous crimes to exploit the law, and it puts vulnerable children at risk.

4 pm

My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands was incredibly generous to me when speaking about her amendment. The truth is that my constituents have driven me in this. I remember the first time that the parents of “Bethan” came to see me—I will use that name for the purpose of this speech. Frankly, as a father I do not know whether I would have kept my composure the way they did if I was in their position. They spoke about it in such an honest way, and they continue to do so. The other experience I had with the family was up in the Gallery with them when the amendment was debated, and I could see their sheer joy.

When Bethan’s daughter’s father was sentenced he was banned from any future contact with children, but he was not banned from contact with his own child. This critical amendment would stop that. It would give Bethan, and others in her position, the assurances she needs that her child cannot be contacted by a convicted paedophile. I know the Minister to be a very capable Minister and a good person, and I am sure she agrees that no parent should have to go through this. The amendment could save anguish for many thousands of parents and give them clarity.

Of further importance is that Bethan had to self-fund her case to severely restrict her daughter’s father’s parental rights, but that is not something that every parent will be able to achieve—and there are people without legal aid. Of course, the consideration most paramount is the safeguarding of the child and protecting the innocent victims, but this protection should not be available only to those who can afford it.

The proposal was also championed last year by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, who asked how an individual can be considered too dangerous to work with or be around other people’s children yet be allowed to have responsibility for a child’s life so long as that child is their own. I do not think that is a controversial statement to make, so I ask the Minister to give the amendment due consideration.

This is clearly something that is very important to me and my constituents. If the amendment is not passed today, I will push for further amendments on this issue and bring forward debates on it, as well as private Member’s Bill. When I spoke to Bethan’s family, they talked about how devastated they were that the amendment was not taken forward. I hope the Minister will recognise the anguish that this delay is causing.