Child Risk Disclosure Scheme

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a child risk disclosure scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The focus of this debate, a child risk disclosure scheme, might sound a bit complicated and dry. In some ways, it is. It is about how our laws, policies and institutions come together to protect some of the most vulnerable children in this country, and about how we close gaps in a complex web involving our police, the NHS, local authorities, our education system and families. Ultimately, however, it is about the children at the heart of those cases and the lives that have been altered forever by the most horrifying abuse. Some we may never know the names of, but their lives were still important, still cherished and still worth protecting.

My constituent Gemma Chappell and her sister Rachael know that pain all too well. Their great-niece, Maya Chappell, was cruelly murdered by her mother’s new partner in September 2022, aged just two and a half. The case shocked the community of Consett in my constituency, as well as communities in Shotton Colliery, County Durham and across the north-east.

Before I talk more about the case, I want to talk about Maya. If one thing was clear from my conversations with Gemma and her family, it is that Maya was a treasured little girl. She had family, friends and an entire community who loved her and who looked after her. Despite her tender age, she touched the hearts of everyone she met with her huge smile, infectious laugh and friendly nature. She was full of life, mischief and personality. She loved cake, playtime and “Peppa Pig”. Although it is a privilege to remember Maya here in Parliament, it is with a deep sadness that we are here today because this much-loved little girl was failed so terribly by those who were supposed to protect her.

Maya was born on 7 March 2020, just before the start of the pandemic. Being born at that time meant that she was not seen by others. Although her mother was not known to statutory services, Maya’s family say there were early red flags, including missed health visits, concerns about drugs being in and around the house, and her parents being involved in controlling or concerning relationships.

In summer 2022, Maya’s mother began a relationship with Michael Daymond, and they quickly moved in together. A judge would later conclude that from that moment, Daymond began hurting Maya regularly. She soon began to sustain bruises that were noticed by other people. Relatives flagged these injuries to Maya’s mother, but she did not act. Instead, Maya was kept away from her father, James, and from the staff at her nursery so that they could not see the impact of Daymond’s abuse. In fact, following Maya’s move to Peterlee, members of her family did not even know where she lived.

On 28 September, Michael Daymond was being chased for drug debts and was told that his universal credit had been cut off. On that day, he subjected Maya to the most appalling physical violence, leaving her with injuries that were not survivable. She died in hospital two days later, on 30 September 2022.

It has now been more than three years since that tragic day, but Maya’s family and the community of Consett have ensured that her name has not been forgotten. I doubt that there is a single person in Consett and active on social media who has not seen Maya’s beaming smile, which is exactly how her family want her to be remembered. They have held local events, reached out to everyone they can think of and grabbed the attention of local and national media. It is thanks to their tenacity that I am here today and it is a tribute to the entire community, who have got behind the campaign in memory of Maya’s life.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making such a powerful and moving speech. I also want to pay a personal tribute to Gemma Chappell and her family for launching the Maya’s law campaign. We have already accepted that the right to know can prevent abuse and murder in domestic and sexual violence cases—that is, for adults. Surely it is now time for Parliament to extend the same protection and safeguards to children who cannot speak for themselves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key aims of the Maya’s law campaign—a child risk disclosure scheme, mandatory multi-agency safeguarding protocols, and new powers for professionals to raise alerts and trigger family court interventions—would represent a vital step towards a genuinely progressive safeguarding approach?

[Liz Twist]

I know that people in my hon. Friend’s community were also affected by the case. I certainly agree that the law would make a real difference to people and children in future. That is what we want to do—protect other children.

I have been particularly moved by Gemma and Rachael’s determination to work with other families who have had their lives changed irrevocably by child abuse, including the families of Star Hobson and Tony Hudgell, who is thankfully still alive. This campaign is not only about remembering Maya; it is about preventing other children from enduring the unimaginable pain that Maya did on that day and in the weeks preceding her death.

Although the family were not known to statutory services, the child safeguarding practice review highlighted instances in which professionals could have stepped in—for example, when Maya’s mother contacted a health visitor asking for support or when Maya’s father, James, approached Durham’s First Contact service with concerns about Michael Daymond. James was told to contact the police, where the matter was progressed under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but when an officer followed that up, Maya’s mother told them that she was no longer with Daymond and the matter was closed. Clearly, there was a need for more professional curiosity on the part of the First Contact service and the police, but the incident highlighted the fact that neither of those laws is designed to protect children from known risks of non-sexual abuse.

Sarah’s law and Clare’s law operate on a right to ask and right to know basis. Relevant third parties can request information and the police can make disclosures of their own accord if they become aware that a person may be at risk. Clare’s law, which focuses on intimate partner violence, covers children only when they are linked to a primary adult who is at risk of domestic abuse. Although children are the focus of Sarah’s law, its primary concern is sexual offending. Sarah’s law does permit the disclosure of wider safeguarding concerns, but that is discretionary, and there is a presumption to disclose information about an individual only where they have convictions for child sex offences. However, children are killed and harmed in households where non-sexual abuse is taking place and where family members have raised concerns but had no legal standing to insist on intervention.