Lords Chamber

Monday 15th December 2025

(began 2 hours, 5 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: UK Research and Innovation funding grants to study at UK universities which are not open to white or Asian applicants
-

I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. Yes, sir.
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Enabling women over the age of 70 to continue to be invited by the NHS to have regular mammograms to support the early detection of breast cancer
-

>> I beg to move the question. >> Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:29
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm can I offer my condolences to the noble Lord for his loss? And can I also say to him that I can't be with him this evening because I'm in here dealing with the police and crime bill today? But had I not been in here dealing with the police and crime bill, I would certainly be with him to stand in solidarity. He asked what we are doing. I've given a range of things that the government will do. We are open continually to suggestions as to how we can tackle this scourge.

But we've already asked the noble Lord Mann to review anti-Semitism in the National Health Service. We've got a review undertaking and demanding action from universities on action to protect Jewish students. We need to ensure that we encourage what I would hope we should encourage, which is tolerance, understanding and knowledge about different religions, because there's a range of of in a multicultural society where we need to have that tolerance. And I reach out to him to look at how we, on a cross-party basis can ensure that we say the scourge of anti-Semitism, the scourge of intolerance, is one that we need to start from very early on and to ensure that people live their lives in an open, tolerant way where their religion doesn't require armed guards at synagogues and doesn't require armed guards at schools.

But I hope he understands at the moment that we will support the community security trust and the police forces to deliver that safety, where now there are self-evidently, given the Manchester attack recently, threats that our life.
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:37
15:38
None Portrait AMDT: 317 Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-

>> To move. Amendment 317. This group of amendments addresses a vital aspect of public protection, closing the loopholes that allow registered sex offenders to evade detection and monitoring by detection and monitoring by changing their identity. Effective management of offenders in the 21st management of offenders in the 21st century requires a justice system that is not only legally robust, but properly resourced and technologically capable. On these benches, we strongly welcome clause 87, which requires sex offenders to notify the police of a name change seven days before using that new name.

In the words of the clause, this is a significant improvement on the current retrospective notification regime, which has allowed offenders to disappear from the radar of the authorities. However, my amendment 317 seeks to tighten this provision further regarding deed polls. As currently drafted, an offender could theoretically go through the legal process of obtaining a deed poll to change their name without the police being aware until the moment they intend using it again. Using the language of clause 87, my amendment specifies that if a name change is by deed poll, the offender must notify the police seven days prior to submitting the application.

This ensures that the police are alerted at the very start of the administrative process of changing identity, rather than at the end. It provides authorities with the vital time needed to conduct appropriate risk assessments and, if necessary, intervene before a new legal identity is formally established. This proposal has been championed by campaigners in the Commons, such as Sarah Champion MP. In the other place, and it is a common sense safeguard to ensure the police are always one step ahead.

I must stress that the management of offenders today is not just about physical monitoring, it's about digital monitoring. Just as we've seen criminal recruitment drives for money mules take place on social media platforms, we know that the internet provides avenues for offenders to re-offend or breach their conditions, while amendment 317 seeks to tighten the management regime legislative framework, I would urge the government to ensure that the police and relevant agencies do have the digital resources and data sharing capabilities required to enforce these new powers effectively, rather than relying on a fragmented system that allows offenders to slip through the net.

My Lords, this measure would strengthen the safety net immeasurably around our communities. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment as a logical extension of the government's own objectives. In clause 87, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 87, page 100, line 34. At the end, insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. MoJ.
15:41
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
>> MoJ. >> My, my Lords, the Gender Recognition Act, passed in 2004 2004, was designed for a world with 2004, was designed for a world with low demand for gender recognition certificates and without anticipating modern safeguarding realities. I believe that that context has fundamentally changed, and that creates a serious gap that my amendment seeks to close. So the system is no longer confined to a small number of older adults. New Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 10,000 Grcs have been issued.

Last year alone, over 1169 were granted. That's the highest number on record and more than triple the annual figure five years ago. This is quite a dramatic generational shift. Almost a quarter of new certificates now go to people born. Since the year 2000. Demand has changed, but I don't think safeguarding has kept up. I recently tabled a written question to the government after I'd seen multiple cases of male born sex offenders changing their gender identity, so by the time they appeared in court, all were sent to prison.

They'd identified as a woman. So I was curious. And so therefore, I asked the government what safeguards would prevent a convicted rapist or sex offender from later going on to obtain a gender recognition certificate and being legally recognised as a woman. But while firstly, I was troubled that this question, when it came to be answered, had been transferred to the Government Minister for equalities, rather than being answered by the Home Office, I believe it's fundamentally a matter of safety, not about equality.

It should have been answered by the Home Office, and so I do worry it demonstrates the confusion at the heart of the government on this issue. Rape and sex offences are not about equality or identity, they are about safety. Moreover, and more importantly, the response ignored the core issue. While of course we do welcome the measures on name changes, passports and police notification that they are welcome, but they do not prevent a convicted sex offender, if I understand it correctly, from changing their legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and going on to live the remainder of their lives legally as a woman.

And to me, that highlights a serious safeguarding gap. And that's why this amendment would seek to close that. My Lords, you may be asking why this is necessary, and noble Lords may be wondering, what is this risk that I speak about? We must be frank. Sexual predators cannot be cured. The risk may be managed, but it's not eliminated. And that's why we have the lifelong monitoring regimes we have. That's why MAPPA exists. And that's why I believe the law must ensure that those who pose a permanent risk to women and girls, and also men and boys, cannot access a legal mechanism that alters their status in ways that Parliament never intended.

And we should not sit back. While a legal framework is developed for one specific purpose is abused by sex offenders, thereby adding to victims pain and trauma. For example, the victim of Ryan Haley, who was sexually assaulted multiple times when she was a child, fearing that she would be raped later on. Her predator, her perpetrator, Haley changed his name to Natalie Wolf and publicly identifies as a woman in The Victim. In the victim statement, she said, Ryan Haley wants everyone to know him now as Natalie, but in my eyes, he's Ryan Haley, the man who sexually abused me.

She said that watching how he celebrates his life and his body and his choices felt like salt in her wounds. And would any of us be happy if this predator was able to, in the future, attain legal recognition for a gender recognition certificate and live as a woman following these crimes? Surely this is obscene. I can't see how this could be defended under any circumstances. And even the most ardent believer in second chances would raise an eyebrow about this. We've spoken often in this, in this debate about the need for the government to be one step ahead, as is so often the case when we see these crimes occurring, and not to wait until bad things happening, it's really difficult to obtain data about the individuals who have gender recognition certificates and the overlap with the offender and prison cohort.

So actually, we just don't know how many individuals fall into these categories or what the risk would be. But we do have evidence of some of these cases where we've left this gap open. The case of Karen White, noble Lords will be familiar with that. A male born sex offender who identified as a female, she was transferred to a women's prison, he, I should say, and he went on to assault women in custody. That was a foreseeable failure. The Supreme Court has now clarified that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, which is helpful.

But that ruling doesn't and was not intended to resolve the operational confusion faced by prisons, hospitals and public authorities who must navigate to legal regimes without clear guidance. While we're still waiting for the government to publish that advice, it's my understanding that the court judgement is concerned narrowly with the definition of the terms man and woman, and therefore any policy choices concerning the certificate regime will in any case be outside of the guidance. In short, the legal status of the Gender Recognition Certificate is unchanged and without this amendment and sexual predator can still obtain one.

My Lords, this amendment is not about identity, it's about safeguarding. It's about ensuring that a person who has committed a serious sexual offence cannot obtain a certificate that should be a privilege for somebody to obtain that changes their legal sex in a way that compromises the safety of women. And I would be very grateful if the Minister, when he comes to respond to me, could answer some specific questions, which is, could a convicted sex offender obtain a GRC while serving a prison sentence for sexual offences? Could a convicted criminal offender obtain a GRC while serving a prison sentence for any other offences? And could either of these groups obtain a GRC after their convictions are spent? And will the long awaited guidance from the government include in its scope any changes to the GRC policy framework? So I do look forward to the Minister's reply and I beg leave to move the amendment I am.
15:48
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. Very briefly to just >> My Lords. Very briefly to just say that I'm I'm very supportive of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness McLean of Redditch, which I think have been spoken to very well and very strongly. I just well and very strongly. I just wanted to talk about one particular case of a sex offender called Clive Bundy, who, while in prison he was in prison for some years for sexually abusing and raping his daughter, Kerry Lee Galvin, from a young age.

So it was incestuous sexual abuse and rape. He went to prison in 2016. When he before he was released from prison, he declared that he was a woman and changed his name by deed poll, helped and abetted by the prison authorities, as it were, very generously, to aid his release. There's a number of reasons why this issue has been brought to my attention. I've actually spoken about it in this house before. And the reason is, is because Clive Bundy changed his name to Claire Fox, and so consequently, I know about it.

Claire Fox now wanders freely, as it were. But the most important thing was I was contacted by his daughter, Kerry Lee Galvin, and before we had the Supreme Court ruling, I have actually raised this a number of times in a number of bills before to note that Kerry Lee Galvin, as a victim, has been badly betrayed by this story because Kerry Lee Galvin was never told that her incestuous rapist father was being released because he wasn't. Claire Fox was.

And of course, guess what? If you Google Claire Fox, there are horror stories that you'll get, but they're about me, not him. In all seriousness though, it was a deed poll change. Clive Bundy might well be on the sex offenders register, but Clive Bundy doesn't exist. Claire Fox exists, but Claire Fox is Clive Bundy, the rapist, and therefore is free to live in the same town as his daughter, which he has done and harassed her. And I won't go into the details, but Kerry Gavin has been incredibly brave and giving up her anonymity to talk about this story to the press and various times and, as she says, can't get anywhere when she's tried to lobby on this point.

But that therefore, in theory, Claire Fox, Clive Bundy, not on the Sex offenders register, can apply to work with young children in the local area where her daughter goes to nursery. And nobody knows that that person is a child rapist. There must be something the government can do to strengthen. Therefore, the safeguarding that I know is the intention of the government in this group of amendments and therefore I think the two amendments should be seriously taken up by the government as not contradicting your aims, but helping ensure that your aims are more than just written on paper, but that actually do protect victims and future victims.

It is not a question of making a moral judgement, let me say. I don't care whether Clive Bundy thinks that he's a woman or not. That's irrelevant to me. I don't even care that he's taken my name, which, by the way, is a fashionable thing to do to use a gender critical name as a kind of form of trolling apparently happens in America quite a lot. That's irrelevant to this. The point is, how do we protect people when we say we've got a sex offenders register? That does not reflect reality? By the way, the special privacy measures are given.

And when I've asked questions in the past, I've been told that because this person has chosen to change gender and therefore is now, we cannot investigate Clive Bundy. And if Clive Bundy, as Claire Fox, turns up for a meeting with to volunteer with the Girl Guides, no one can even ask, are you the same person? I mean, we can't even go there. It's ridiculous. Not what the government wants. Therefore, I hope the government is open to these two very important changes of amendments on deed poll and on Lords.
15:53
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I want to just pick up, first of all, on Baroness Mcclean's amendment and both her comments and Lady Fox's comments, and to ask the Minister a question, am I right in thinking that given the Prison service and I think also the Probation Service must do a full assessment of risk on any transgender prisoner, that actually the protections that they seek are already there. And I'm grateful for lady McLean for for raising the case of Karen White. Scottish Prison Service apologised because they did not do what they should have done, which was a full risk assessment.

Had they done that, she would not have been placed on a on a woman's wing. And I therefore would just hope that the Minister can confirm that the protections to the public, and particularly to victims, remain, because now, following the Karen White case in particular, there is real care taken to make sure that the law is followed. And I would find it extraordinary if crimes were just dropped off the list because somebody had a transgender recognition certificate. So can the noble Lord confirm that that is not the case? My Lords, turning now to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones amendment from from these benches, we too welcome clause 87, but it does need strengthening, and his amendment is very clear.

We do have to be able to stop offenders from changing their names without the knowledge of the police. And this also plays into lady McLean's amendment as well. The research from the Safeguarding Alliance has shown that key legislation is being made redundant because of a loophole that people can use to get through the the cracks. This is not just about transgender issues, it's about people just changing their name, regardless of their gender. And frankly, this makes Sarah's Law and Clare's Law utterly useless.

So I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, is prepared to consider this. The remaining amendments in this group from the government look as if they are sensible adjustments for the arrangements for sex offenders obtaining driving licence in Northern Ireland. And we look forward to hearing from the Minister in more detail on those.
15:55
15:56
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, beginning with the amendments that regulate name changes of sex offenders, I'm glad changes of sex offenders, I'm glad that members across your Lordships' House are in agreement of the necessity of regulations. Clause 87 is a sensible measure brought forward by the government, and the amendments that build upon its principle are similarly prudent. An individual who commits a crime as intrusive and offensive as a sexual offence demonstrates that they are a threat to public order and public safety.

It is the reason, after all, why we have a sex offender register. Criminals who have proven that they pose a risk should be monitored by the authorities, and the authorities should have the necessary details needed to monitor and manage them. Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones ensures that those who change their name by deed poll are legally required to alert the police of this change. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords Minister extend the provision restricting the granting of driving licences in a new name to Northern Ireland.

All of these amendments seek to consolidate and ensure that there are no gaps in the existing legislation and the government's new law, and we support the principle behind them. My Lords, the most consequential of amendments in this group is that tabled in the name of my noble friend, lady McLean of Redditch, her amendment would serve to bar those who commit sexual offences from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This is a very necessary measure, my Lords. I'm glad the government has not yet granted an exemption for sex offending transgender criminals, which would allow them to attend a prison different to their biological sex.

Hailing from north of the border. As others have commented, where there have been several incidents of that happening, it is a very worrying scenario indeed. But I do note the government has still not implemented the Supreme Court's judgement in the For Women Scotland case, neither in statute nor in guidance, and there is still the chance that those who commit sexual offences can end up in the wrong prison through obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I'm not remotely suggesting the government would wilfully do this, but given their record regarding prisoner administration, I hope the Minister, the Minister, can understand our concerns.

There currently exists no safeguards outside of Minister's discretion, and a way to guarantee that this does not happen would be to bar sex offenders from obtaining a certificate in the first place. It is a bare minimum in sending such people to prison. We are already admitting they are not trustworthy amongst the public. Why then should we risk the safety of prisoners of the opposite sex? For those reasons, I support my noble friend's amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, can do so to.
15:59
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the amendments down on this group from amendments down on this group from the noble Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Baroness McLean of Redditch and the. There are a number of amendments down in my name, which I formally beg to move now, and I'll explain what they mean in a moment. My Lords, clause 94 of the Bill, which will come on to in more detail later, provides for the police to restrict changes of name for registered sex offenders, identity documents that they hold where the police consider it necessary to prevent sexual harm.

They will be able to issue a notice to a registered sex offender, which may require them to apply for the police's authorisation to change their name on specified documents. This will ensure that those registered sex offenders who are deemed to be at risk of using a name change to commit sexual harm, are unable to continue offending under a new name and pass under the radar of law enforcement. And I'm grateful for the broad support from noble Lords for the general direction of travel from the government on these points.

New section 931 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, creates a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to prevent the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency from granting a replacement driving licence to registered sex offenders that are subject to such restrictions by the police and the DVLA issues. Licences in England, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland that functions exercised by the Driver and Vehicle Agency and hence my amendment 325, making equivalent provision to new section 931 for Northern Ireland.

It will enable the Department of Infrastructure in Northern Ireland to make regulations preventing registered sex offenders from being issued with a replacement licence and a new name without necessary authorisation, and I'm grateful for the support for that from both the Liberal Democrat and government opposition benches. This will be possible whether the registered sex offender now previously held a licence in Northern Ireland or Britain. Amendments 320 to 324 provide for the DVLA to refuse to issue a British driving licence as a replacement for a licence issued in Northern Ireland to a registered sex offender attempting to obtain a British licence in a new name without authorisation, and the remaining government amendments are minor and consequential to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Together, these amendments from the government mean that registered sex offenders cannot exploit the existence of two driving licence issuing agencies in the UK, and that will enable them to be unable to obtain a driving licence without authorisation, regardless of where that licence comes from in the UK. Now, if I can turn to amendment 317, in the name of the noble Lord Clement Jones, which seeks to ensure that registered sex offenders who change their name by deed poll inform the police of their intention, at least seven days in advance of submitting an application.

I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that clause 87 already requires offenders to notify the police of a new name no less than seven days before using it, and if he looks at clause 8783 A1A, he will see that no less than seven days before using it is the phraseology on page 100 of the current text of the Bill, and I hope that will reassure him that that requirement is already there. This requirement applies whether the change is made through an enrolled deed poll, which involves an application to the Royal Courts of Justice or through an Unenrolled deed poll where registered sex offenders intend to change their name via an enrolled deed poll, they will be expected to notify the police seven days before submitting the application, as he cannot be known how long it will take to process the application and to support this.

Updated statutory guidance will be issued to police forces ahead of implementation, clearly setting out the expectation that notification must be given at least seven days before the new name is used. There is an exemption from liability for breach of this requirement, where advanced notification is genuinely not reasonably practicable, but such cases are expected to be rare, particularly for changes by name by deed poll. Now amendment 325A in the name of the noble Lady McLean, supported by the noble Baroness Fox and I.

I'm sorry she's had the difficulties with the name change. It's whether it's deliberate or accidental. It's it must be very inconvenient. But I understand her frustration at that. The amendment 325 A seeks to prohibit any offender who's been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate. Now, noble Baroness Brinton, I think touched on the point that I would have said and I'm going to say, which is that convicted sex offenders, regardless of their gender, are subject to post-conviction controls like the notification requirements and are eligible for sexual harm prevention orders and multi risk management assessments through the MAPPA process.

And they're managed according to the risk they pose rather than their gender. And that, I think, is the right thing to do. This is not about gender, it's about risk. And given there are robust post-conviction management of sex offenders in place, and also, may I just say that very low volume of gender recognition certificates have changed each year. I don't see this as a necessary amendment. The sex offender register is about managing risk, and the government is not persuaded that a blanket ban on registered sex offenders obtaining a gender recognition certificate would be proportionate or necessary for these purposes.

But that doesn't take away and hope the noble Lady will accept this, that this is about management of risk and the sex offenders register is in place for that purpose. If a registered sex offender seeks to change their name following a change of gender, whether through a gender recognition certificate or indeed otherwise, the provisions in the bill will apply if necessary and if we assess it would be helpful to the police in managing risk. We can exercise the existing regulation, making power to require registered sex offenders to notify the police where they obtain a gender recognition certificate.

So I hope I've been able to satisfy both the noble Lord Clement-jones and the noble Lady McLean, that the amendments are unnecessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And Lords Minister. Could I just check them? Does that mean that somebody changes a name and doesn't inform the police that the name, the new name can be put on the sex offenders register?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offenders register? That is my understanding of the position and I hope that helps. The position and I hope that helps. The noble and learned Lady that is the the the principle behind what we're proposing here today. But again, I say to the whole House that this is based on, again, ultimately management based on risk, not on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gender. And I hope with those with that, sir. I thank the noble Lord, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, very much. May I just press him on one specific point? I do understand what he's saying do understand what he's saying about management of risk, but may I ask then, if it would be possible for a convicted sex offender, a for a convicted sex offender, a serious sex offender or rapist to actually be prevented on the basis actually be prevented on the basis of risk from obtaining a gender recognition certificate should they wish to do so, would actually be possible for that to be barred in a specific case, should that individual be assessed as posing a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

risk to public safety. The the position for the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the position for the noble Lady there is that the Sexual Lady there is that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would ensure that individuals, convicted sex offenders are already subject to post-conviction controls. They're managed according to their risk and managed according to their risk and the sex offenders register would be around looking at the. The position with regard to the the individual having their risk on on the basis of the the actions and it wouldn't be possible to stop someone applying for a gender recognition certificate, but ultimately they would be placed on the sex offenders register based on their risk, not on their gender.

And with that, I hope that the House will withdraw the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just also ask a question for clarification, which is not really about GRC, but to the point really about GRC, but to the point that the noble Baroness Lane-Fox made about name change, and I know he did cover that in his comments, he did cover that in his comments, but I'm still left a little confused. Can a person who is a convicted sex offender and on the convicted sex offender and on the sex offenders register change their name by deed poll and their new name by deed poll and their new name be omitted, therefore, from the sex offenders register, as in as soon as a sex offender changes their name, surely whether they're changing their name from a male name to a female name that needs to be updated on the sex offenders register.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding. And again, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding. And again, if I examine this, that the the position is that the individual is on the sex offenders register, on the sex offenders register, regardless of the name that they are currently providing them with, and the risk is around the and the risk is around the individual, and that if a registered sex offender seeks to change their name, the provisions change their name, the provisions in the bill will apply as proposed in the bill here today. So I hope
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page