First, I thank the Minister for the work he has done on this Bill. I acknowledge the relentless work and advocacy of David French and his family in regard to the work behind the Bill. When we talk about laws like Valerie's Law, we are ultimately asking a difficult but essential question. What does justice mean for a child whose parent has committed the most serious harm imaginable, killing the other parent? There is often an instinct in law to preserve parental rights wherever possible. This is right because the Constitution recognises the importance of family. The bond between parent and child is one that should never be lightly broken but we must be clear about one thing: parental rights are not absolute. They exist alongside and must sometimes give way to the rights and well-being of the child. In situations of domestic homicide, it is simply not acceptable to assume that a perpetrator should always have access to their child. First, we must consider the psychological reality for the child. A child who has lost one parent at the hands of the other is not just grieving, they are dealing with a profound trauma. Forcing or even allowing contact in all cases risks reopening that trauma, creating fear, confusion and emotional harm that will be felt not just today or tomorrow but well into the future. Access in these circumstances is not always a benefit. It can be a source of significant psychological damage. Second, we must look at the nature of the crime itself. The act of killing the child's other parent represents a fundamental breach of trust, responsibility and care. It is not just a crime against an individual but it is a violation that directly affects the child's sense of safety and stability. In many ways, a person who has committed such an act compromises their role as a caregiver. Third, there is an issue of power and control. Even limited access can allow a perpetrator to continue exerting influence over a child or even over the wider family. In cases of domestic violence, control does not always end with the criminal act. It can continue through legal processes and claims of parental involvement. The law must be careful not to become a tool that extends that control. Fourth, we must prioritise the best interests of the child as the overriding principle. While this is the fourth point, it is the most fundamental and important one. This is not a moral claim: it is a legal standard. The child's welfare must always come first, ahead of any entitlement the parent may claim. In many cases of domestic homicide, maintaining contact simply will not meet that standard. There is nothing to argue that access should never be allowed, there may be rare, exceptional circumstances where carefully managed contact is appropriate but the key point is that access should never be assumed or automatic. Instead, it must be carefully assessed, strictly controlled and only permitted where it clearly benefits the child. Valerie's Law reflects this shift in thinking. It moves us away from a system that prioritises parental status and towards one that centres the child's safety, dignity and emotional well-being. In conclusion, we must recognise that in extreme cases the question is not what the parent is entitled to but what the child needs in order to heal, feel safe and move forward. Sometimes that means recognising that no access at all is the most favourable outcome in these scenarios. I again thank the Minister. I also again acknowledge the French family for all their efforts. It is quite extraordinary. I reiterate the point that the child's interests has to always be at the centre of argument we make.

Sentiment score: 0.03