Alison Hume MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) embarrassed herself and this House when she said that the England football team needed to keep winning to keep women safe from domestic abuse. Does the Minister agree with me and with Refuge that linking domestic violence to football allows perpetrators to avoid accountability for their horrific actions?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Child Contact Arrangements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the issue. I completely agree that unfortunately we are seeing far, far too many mothers who are disbelieved and have had their children removed from them without any basis for doing so at all. Lives are being destroyed. If a parent complains, there is a very significant risk that that will be used against them. Ultimately, it should not matter whether an expert is regulated or unregulated if regulated and unregulated experts both rely on the same harmful pseudoscience and inflict equally devastating consequences, particularly on mothers and their children. The advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge’s decision about child contact arrangements: the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 harm report highlighted the fact that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the family court without robust scrutiny. Evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. A constituent of mine had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse. The non-profit Right to Equality has conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact-finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is quite clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for their mothers. I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high-risk arrangements by the family court. Julia Margo, the co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing, with which I have been working closely, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system. After discovering that her former partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles, during which he took her to court 37 times demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the court seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile. In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at 10 years old. That day, a social worker came to the house and told her that she had half an hour to pack her things. The child recalled: “I stuffed my favourite outfit in a bag—this blue shirt and leggings—along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It is what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away.” The young girl later discovered that that simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents had separated two years earlier. She said: “The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parent’s feelings, and it was a sign of abuse.” At 12 years old, the child wrote to the president of the family division, England’s most senior family judge, seeking the representation that she was previously denied. A district judge had found abuse from her father and found that her mother harboured a great deal of anger against him. A consultant psychiatrist, Dr Mark Berelowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was that she had been subjected to her mother’s “unresolved angry feelings about the breakdown of their relationship.” The judge then ordered that the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father. It is clear that in this case, as in so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child’s wishes during the court process. In the child’s words: “I was removed from my mother’s care within hours of a court order being made…I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me. They said I was repeating my mother’s words and that, despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the person who frightened me.” Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against the mother. She had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings. Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary. In December 2019, the court ordered that the children, who were then aged nine and 12, be removed, and it granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. In overturning court findings informed by Gill’s reports, the president of the family division’s ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases. Guidance published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024 says that experts should not be appointed to look for alienation; instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific alienating behaviours. It was this new information that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court. In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the family division has recognised the significant barriers that mothers face when seeking to appeal and has asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I urge the Family Justice Council to consider that proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents who have been wrongfully separated because of pseudoscientific claims can finally have their cases reviewed. However, there is still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. Although the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they will not be able to prevent the underlying error. As a route to justice, such judgments depend on the protective parent securing legal representation, identifying the procedural defect and bringing a part 18 application to set aside, years after the original order. As I have mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. That is why I have been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill; I am grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss it with me. Through the amendment, I propose to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings, before findings of fact are made and before residence is disturbed. That would effectively prevent harm, rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate. We need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and so that allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse. I welcome the fact that, thanks to timeless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement set out in the Children Act 1989. This is a long-overdue correction to the pro-contact culture identified in the 2020 harm report and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the Government’s rolling out of child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker. An important question remains unaddressed, however: when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence? That gap is currently doing significant harm. Too often, in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protected parent. Doing so risks reinterpreting the child’s voice not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation. I am also aware of cases in which a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and those disclosures are then used as evidence of alienation against their mother, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure it can work against the mother, who risks losing the child. My simple amendment would effectively prevent the use of counterclaims of alienation to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves. Does the Minister agree that for many of the hundreds of children and mothers who have been forcibly separated, the route to justice through appeal is hard to access? Does she agree that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children’s voices carry the evidential weight that they should carry in family court proceedings? Does she support strengthening the Courts and Tribunals Bill further so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, the child’s not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts?

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate and on his excellent opening speech. There are countless amazing organisations across the country that support victims of domestic abuse. I pay tribute to Independent Domestic Abuse Services, the largest specialist charity in Yorkshire, which does sterling work to support my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby. It is clear that our family justice system needs urgent reform to ensure that children are at the heart of proceedings. That was made incredibly clear to me earlier this week when I chaired a roundtable with charities, legal professionals and women with lived experience about improving outcomes for children in domestic abuse cases. Everyone on the panel agreed that children’s voices are lost in the system. One of the many inspirational speakers was Julia Margo, co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing. After experiencing the unimaginable—discovering that her partner, the father of her two children, was a convicted child sex offender—her ordeal was continued by the family court system, as her ex-partner claimed legal aid and took her to court 37 times over the next eight years to demand access to their children. About the process, she said: “The lawyers, magistrates and judges seemed to look on me as a hysteric, whose claims of trauma were exaggerated…The courts were more worried about ‘parental alienation’—that I should turn our sons against their father—than about two little boys being left alone with a paedophile.” Since being elected to Parliament, I have been motivated by a brave constituent to work on reforming the family courts so that abusive partners cannot claim parental alienation to undermine and silence survivors and influence child contact arrangements. In recent years, there has been a rise in the use of experts to “prove” alienation—a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. A perpetrator of abuse will allege that a child’s refusal of contact or reluctance towards it is due to the survivor parent alienating the child from them. That has led to survivors having their children removed from them, which is against the interests of the child and the mother. The non-profit Right to Equality conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for the mothers. I welcome the fact that the Government are rolling out child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and will resolve cases more quickly, saving children months of trauma. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement—a long-overdue correction to a pro-contact culture that has failed to put children first—is a brilliant step forward. However, there is still a gap in legislation that risks the wellbeing of children in private family law proceedings. It simply does not address the question of what happens when a child resists or refuses contact with a party against whom abuse is alleged. What evidential weight does the court give to the child’s response? I am currently drafting an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aims to stop counter-allegations of alienation being used to undermine or distract from reports of domestic abuse. It would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves. It would ensure that a child’s resistance towards an abusive parent is treated not as evidence of manipulation, but as evidence of harm. When a child is reluctant or refuses to spend time with a person against whom allegations of domestic abuse have been made, it should be regarded as reasonable and justified. As the Government move forward with putting children at the heart of the family justice system, will the Minister commit to working with Parliament on changes to ensure that a child’s resistance to contact with an abusive parent is treated as credible evidence of harm and not of manipulation?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, I was thrilled to see Scarborough rugby union football club crowned regional 2 north-east champions—the highest level in the club’s history. The club does brilliant work in the Scarborough community, with various teams for women and for rugby players of all levels. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Scarborough RUFC’s historic victory and its vital contribution to Scarborough?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby there are thousands of seasonal job opportunities each year, and as well as an enlarged tourism sector during the summer months, there is regular seasonal employment for the rest of the year, such as the fabulous Scarborough Lights festival each and every winter—it is going on at the moment. Overall, 11% of working people in Scarborough and Whitby are employed in retail, with another 20% working in hospitality. The Employment Rights Bill will boost and protect those workers against zero-hour contracts and last-minute shift cancellations. Having worked as a freelancer for many years, I understand the pressures that workers in the so-called gig economy face. Too many women have to constantly juggle their work around caring responsibilities, with no certainty as to whether they will work enough to pay the bills each month. I was one of those women. The Bill will establish day-one parental rights, and strengthen statutory sick pay, transforming the world of work for millions of women. In fact, 40% of unemployed women say that flexible working hours will likely get them into work. If Conservative Members claim to be pro-growth, they cannot disregard the economic benefits of legal protections that will help women to enter and stay in the workforce. The Employment Rights Bill protects both employers and workers by implementing common-sense protections and real financial provisions that will drive growth in coastal communities such as mine and across the country, and I fully support the Government amendment.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate. According to the Press Gazette , nearly 300 local papers have closed since 2005. We are at a tipping point. The Public Interest News Foundation estimates that 12.5 million people live in areas where there is only one local paper, while 5.4 million people live in news deserts. Local papers provide reliable information at a time when misinformation runs rampant online. My constituency is lucky to have The Scarborough News and Whitby Gazette , which publish a quality weekly paper with a small and dedicated staff. Regionally, we have the York Press , as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the campaigning newspaper The Yorkshire Post. On the air, we have This is the Coast, Coast & County, and of course BBC Radio York and BBC Radio Tees. However, journalists have told me that they are increasingly worried about their own survival—and these journalists are veteran survivors. They have raised concerns about Government proposals to remove the legal requirements to publish alcohol licensing notices and notices on local authority governance changes. The National Union of Journalists has highlighted that local papers remain the main source of news for the digitally excluded. One local editor put it plainly when he said that “denuding print audiences of the right to know what is happening in their community does not feel like community empowerment to me.” I agree with him. Taken together, the changes would deliver a double blow to an already fragile sector. They would deprive titles of reliable revenue, potentially putting papers at risk and impeding the flow of information in our communities. The Secretary of State has committed to publishing a local media strategy to ensure that there is trusted local news across the UK. Ahead of the publication of that strategy, I urge the Minister to consider the impact on these valued and trusted titles of proposed changes to the requirement to report notices. If we value local media and the democracy it sustains, we must legislate to protect it.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  On Armistice Day, the country pauses to remember all those who died in the service of our country. For 88-year-old Gordon from Whitby, as for so many others who lost a family member, there is no need to pause, because he remembers every single day. Gordon’s older brother, Bob, who was 18, was killed towards the end of the second world war. Just before he died, Bob wrote a letter to Gordon. Gordon has carried that letter in his jacket pocket, close to his heart, ever since. Last week, I was honoured to meet Gordon at the “Save a Place at the Table” exhibition at Pannett Art Gallery in Whitby, where Bob’s letter had been incorporated into a beautifully embroidered place mat celebrating his life. The long table was set with individual placemats, all commemorating ordinary local people who served our country. Sitting around the table, enjoying tea and cake, were those who had shared their stories and the schoolchildren who were hearing them for the first time. That wonderful community party was the result of a living art project funded by the Arts Council to mark the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. As the generation who served in the second world war leave us, we must ensure not only that the yearly pause continues but that, every single day, we strive to better look after our veterans and serving personnel. I am proud that this Labour Government have put our veterans and armed forces at the heart of our policies. For each of the nearly 5,000 veterans living in Scarborough and Whitby, our renewal of the nation’s contract with them will be judged through the improved support we offer in healthcare, housing and employment. My constituency has a strong and proud military history. Sites such as RAF Fylingdales and GCHQ Scarborough play a crucial role in national security. This weekend, I saw the future of the armed forces at remembrance services, in the cadets who proudly bore standards, stood in line and marched alongside serving personnel and veterans. My constituent Gordon’s daily act of remembrance is keeping his brother’s letter close to his heart for nearly 80 years. In closing, I put on record my deepest gratitude to all those in Scarborough, Whitby and the villages who have served and continue to serve, and I finish by reflecting on how we might all turn an annual pause into a daily action.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  To grow our economy, we need good connectivity. In coastal communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, we are struck in the slow lane. Scarborough, with its heritage, culture and captivating coastline, is a popular tourist destination, attracting 3.9 million visitors last year. The train from Scarborough to York is an essential transport link for visitors as well as commuters, but with only one service an hour, opportunity and growth are being choked off. We need a twice-hourly service. This proposal is backed by York and North Yorkshire Mayor David Skaith, local businesses, my constituents and Lord Blunkett, who listed the service increase as one of his rail priorities in his report, “Yorkshire’s Plan for Rail”, published this year. Scarborough’s wonderful Stephen Joseph theatre has supported calls for a twice-hourly service, stating that audience members leave performances early to catch their train. Rather like its latest production, “Noises Off”, this is a farce. We have businesses in Scarborough and nearby Seamer that are looking to attract more employees, but with such an irregular service, these opportunities are simply out of reach for many people. We have enough platforms and enough demand for a more regular rail service. The operator, TransPennine Express, says that one of the barriers to providing a twice-hourly service is a shortage of drivers. It insists that it must train its own drivers on its own routes. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the issue of train drivers in his closing remarks, and say whether he is exploring new ways to ensure that the local need for drivers is met. I welcome the news that York and North Yorkshire combined authority will receive £94 million in local transport grant capital funding over the next four years. However, the combined authority, which covers a huge geographical area, is not part of the transport for city regions, so its settlement is not nearly as large as that of most combined authorities.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 11 and amendment 38. I am incredibly relieved that the Government have listened—most importantly, they have listened to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP—and taken clause 5 out of the Bill. The terms of reference for the Timms review have already been set without involving disabled people, but there is a chance with new clause 11 to ensure that it moves forward in a truly co-produced way. What worries me is that without the proposals in the new clause, the Bill highlights the need for co-production but provides no assurances that it will be comprehensively done. Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them rather than done to them. I have walked in the shoes of families in my constituency bringing up children with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals. That is a situation familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities. This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the Government’s proposed changes: the DWP is too frequently at war with the people it is supposed to protect. Too frequently, it lets down the most vulnerable in our community, and it mostly gets away with it. Recently, the incredible Joy Dove won an eight-year legal fight to link her daughter Jodey Whiting’s suicide to the stopping of her benefits, which the DWP admitted was a mistake. Jodey’s avoidable death is not the only one. DWP decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once, when I was waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son’s benefits if I dropped the tribunal. That experience cemented in my mind something that I believe to this day: the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. That culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable, fair and compassionate welfare system for the future. A constituent of mine in Scarborough and Whitby suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions, including PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, polycystic kidney disease and liver disease. In May, after reporting a deterioration in his health, he submitted new evidence to support reassessment for a higher rate of PIP, which led to the DWP removing his award entirely. He was left with no income or support despite his ongoing need for care. This is the reality: many disabled people who are turned down for PIP rely on the health element of universal credit. Many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions, such as MS, ME and mental health conditions. The reality of their conditions means that during periods of remission they return to employment. However, once their condition deteriorates, they return to universal credit. If that happens, with this Bill they would return on a lower level than before, down to just £50 a week. That completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of their conditions. Without the protections provided for in amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less than those with more predictable ones. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 11 and amendment 38. I also ask the Government to please pull the Bill. Even at this late stage, let us get it right for the people who really matter; let us get it right for disabled people.