Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling the digital exploitation of women and girls.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Online abuse and digital exploitation are extremely prevalent in the modern-day world. The targeting of women and girls in online spaces is growing into a market where legislation is not keeping up with the speed of the digital world, so much so that the world’s richest man considered it acceptable and a matter of free speech to have his personal artificial intelligence platform undress women without their consent. That is shameful.

There is a growing difference between in-person exploitation—including sex trafficking, grooming, domestic violence and coercive control—and digital abuse and exploitation of someone’s image, where victims are often not known to perpetrators. In most cases they may not have any knowledge that they are even being exploited, and these crimes often happen in a highly organised manner.

In Lancashire, the police and crime commissioner conducted a survey of 4,800 people on violence against women and girls—otherwise known as VAWG—which asked about digital abuse. Half of the women surveyed, 51%, said they had experienced unwanted or inappropriate messages or images online. Only 12% of those women reported it to the police or any official body. Only a third of survey respondents felt confident that the police would act if they reported an incident, and just 8% trusted the wider criminal justice system to deliver any kind of justice.

Research by the domestic abuse organisation Refuge states that almost every survivor they have supported was subject to some form of technology-facilitated abuse. Some 95% of survivors of technology-facilitated abuse said it had impacted their mental health. I work closely with many organisations in Preston that tackle VAWG, many of which I am pleased to say are here today to observe the debate: the Foxton Centre, Lancashire Women, Hope Prevails Preston, Girls Who Walk Preston and Trust House Lancashire. We are also talking about stalking and abuse. Most of us would think about conventional stalking, where a perpetrator knows the individual or there is often a real-life link between them. The digital world has transformed the ways in which perpetrators utilise online tools to commit intimate partner abuse and coercive control.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is an incredibly difficult subject to address, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing it incredibly well. As a grandfather of three beautiful granddaughters and having seen how the online world has made so many women and girls vulnerable to despicable attacks, I certainly share his concerns, and I believe that we must do more to ensure that safety is paramount. Does he agree that not only do we need to make it digitally impossible to carry out exploitation, but we must ensure that our young people are taught the dangers of image sharing, which can lead to image replication online? The Department for Education, in co-ordination with parents, has a key role to play in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree. In fact, I have just been discussing with some of our visitors from Lancashire what needs to happen in schools so that young people are aware of digital exploitation and the damage and distress that it can cause. I hope the Minister, who is in her place, will look at ways in which the Government could facilitate legislation so that, in future, many of these digital crimes could be included in the statute books and not be regarded as things that the police can do nothing about.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that consent is vital, teaching about consent and seeking consent is imperative, and that the influencers and politicians who say that is too woke and is unnecessary are actually putting our children in danger?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree. Without getting too much into the politics of this, there is a very right-wing argument about what free speech means. When I first came to Parliament in the early 2000s, the then Prime Minister used to talk about rights and responsibilities. We all believe in rights, but they need to be balanced against responsibilities. The idea that somebody can print or send a person’s image and not take responsibility for the consequences is ridiculous. A lot of the current free speech arguments do not give that balance. We need to make sure that the young people and older people who are carrying out these acts know fully what they are doing, are willing to take responsibility for it and that the legal system is equipped to deal with it.

As I said, research by Refuge showed that almost every survivor it supported was subjected to some form of technology-facilitated abuse. When we talk about stalking and abuse, most of us think of conventional stalking, but the digital world has transformed the ways in which perpetrators use online tools to commit intimate partner abuse and coercive control.

In relationships with coercive control as an element, technology is often used to stalk, track and watch a partner’s location at all times. If this were carried out in person and a perpetrator physically followed an individual, that would cross the threshold for criminal prosecution. However, doing the same thing through a device in the digital world has become normalised and is not considered criminal.

This encourages perpetrators to use technology to facilitate abuse as it is more convenient and often evades prosecution. Tech devices, such as Ring doorbells, AirTags and cloning devices are used to track and further stalk victims. In-person stalking is facilitated by the introduction of such devices. Lancashire constabulary has acknowledged the increasing use of social media and messaging apps in coercive control cases. All police forces in the north-west report a year-on-year increase in digital elements in VAWG cases.

We are also seeing the rise of non-consensual intimate image sharing, often referred to as revenge porn. These images are often shared digitally on websites. The person in the image does not have ownership of that image, meaning that it is almost impossible for it to be taken down at the victim’s request. The Revenge Porn Helpline recorded 22,275 reports in 2024, which is a 20.9% increase from the previous year, and 412,000 intimate images have been reported since 2015. We have also seen an increase in online stalking, often through social media, catfishing and doxing, to share personal information such as addresses, workplaces, children’s schools, benefits and immigration status and much more.

The issue of digital abuse is even more severe. Perpetrators are often unknown individuals or organisations, utilising online means such as dark web markets and unregulated servers. Strangers obtain images of women and monetise them. Some of the images are obtained or created to order, and there is increased use of AI to create deepfakes, undress victims and attach false bodies to victims’ faces.

There is also a market for perpetrators to obtain lists of leaked passwords, which can then be used to hack into victims’ personal accounts, where personal photographs are often kept. Widely used dark web servers are monetised to exchange explicit images of women and girls. That represents a significant shift from earlier patterns, where such images were more commonly shared in private by an intimate partner in their social circle.

In the majority of cases of digital abuse, the victims and perpetrators are not known to each other. The threat to share images also happens to under-age boys and girls, including threats to share falsified, AI-created images. That has led to suicide attempts, and, tragically, the completion of suicide in some cases.

One of the most concerning developments in digital exploitation is under-the-radar abuse, where victims have no idea or knowledge that their private images have been accessed, copied or distributed without their consent. We are aware that the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, even of children, has led to perpetrators planning to gang rape some victims in those images. Currently, there is no legal definition of technology-facilitated abuse, and I hope that the Minister will address that point in her remarks. It means that it is almost impossible to prosecute, leaving victims without the ability to seek justice before the court. That situation should not be allowed to happen.

Prosecutors have to rely on other legislation that is often outdated and does not take the growing digital world into account. That results in short sentences and no real justice for the victims. The difficulties of prosecution lead to a lack of understanding by both prosecutors and the police, as well as continued offences and reoffending, which pushes victims into stressful situations, contributing to mental health complexities. The volume of cases put to prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service is remarkably low, and convictions are even lower. Although we are seeing an increase in the reporting of digital abuse, it often leads to victims feeling disappointed and isolated, as the criminal justice process fails to deliver meaningful outcomes.

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is outdated, and the police are still having to apply the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when considering seizing and examining devices. That is also outdated, as mobile phones and cloud-based storage did not exist in the way that they do today. Unfortunately, in some cases, victims need to collate their own evidence, as police forces do not have adequate training or an understanding of the severity of these issues. For example, a member of Girls Who Walk Preston, who is in the Public Gallery, has had a stalker for the last six years who the police have been unhelpful with, because she has not received death threats. The stalker lives under a different police force and refuses to admit that their accounts belong to them. The victim has been forced to collate her own evidence, to prove that the accounts do in fact belong to the stalker. That should not be necessary. It is an outrage, and she should not have to endure it.

I supported a constituent who has been stalked at work, which again fell under a different police force. There is a clear gap in how different constabularies understand and can prosecute those cases. While the picture has been improving in that regard in Lancashire, it is not a country-wide push.

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Is it not also imperative—I think the Government have done some work on this—that women being stalked know who their stalker is? Sometimes they do not know, and it means that they could be at a bus stop, and their stalker could be behind them without them knowing. I am glad that the Government have done some work on that. It is important that, as technologies change, we have the legislation to keep up with them.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally concur; my hon. Friend makes some very strong points.

The examples that I just mentioned highlight the need for consistent and mandatory guidance for all police forces to recognise digital abuse and online stalking, and not just take it for granted that there is nothing they can do about it. I call for national mandatory education for all police forces to recognise and deal with victims of digital abuse and exploitation; exploration of a legal definition of technology-facilitated abuse; and the provision of up-to-date legislation for the prosecution of offences, modernised in line with an ever-evolving digital world.

I welcome the commitment from the Minister to work with technology companies to stop online predators and the spread of explicit images stolen through hacking. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to enact, through the Crime and Policing Bill, a new offence of taking or recording an intimate photograph or film without consent. I would be happy to support the Minister in any way to achieve this objective, working with my own local police force.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Thank you, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister and all my colleagues for an excellent debate. I think we had a brilliant response from the Minister. I am sure she is determined to ensure that the digital space can be as safe as possible for women and children, and for everybody else as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling the digital exploitation of women and girls.

Freight Crime

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I notice a little army of Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber. If they wish to speak, they should have sought the permission of the Member in charge.

Violence against Women and Girls

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in this debate. Everybody can see that we have a large number of people here. We have less than an hour now, given that the mover of the motion has already spoken, and the Government and Opposition spokespeople get 10 minutes each. You do not need to be a maths expert to work out that you are going to get less than two minutes each. Please have cognisance of the fact that any time you go over that, you will be taking time off somebody else. We will be extremely lucky if everybody who has indicated that they wish to speak gets to do so. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Mark—it is not often that I get called first. I will do my best to outline the issues before the two-minute deadline. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing the debate and for the personal story that she told us last Thursday in the Chamber. There is not one of us that was not moved by it.

The Minister has a special determination to do things in Northern Ireland—I know that that is already in motion. In the last year six women have been murdered in Northern Ireland; there have been 33,071 incidents of domestic abuse; 800 women and children have been referred to Women’s Aid, and 10 babies were born in a Women’s Aid refuge. I have referred people to Women’s Aid for help; I want to put on the record my appreciation and thanks for all that it does. The Northern Ireland Health and Justice Departments have launched a domestic and sexual abuse strategy. An abuse incident is reported to police every 16 minutes in Northern Ireland and a sexual offence every two hours. It is absolutely horrendous.

When women come into my office with black eyes or unexplained injuries, it is clear what is happening and clear that we must respond quickly. So what do we want to do? We must support the victims, strengthen the children who are impacted by the abuse, and seek to raise generations of young women who know what to accept and young men who know how to act with women. Violence will not be tolerated and hidden by the darkness. We come into the light to say that the nation will not turn away and will not stay silent. We will work to secure a safer future for my granddaughters and all the women and children in the UK.

My wife Sandra and I strove to raise sons who respect women, and all three have settled down with equally strong and lovely young women. I am very pleased that we are having this debate. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse deserves congratulations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and the shadow Ministers as well. I have left about nine seconds for somebody else.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

It would be great if everybody could follow Mr Shannon’s example. I call Steve Witherden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden]

Yes, I 100% agree. The role of education cannot be understated; it is fundamentally important.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Before we continue, I would appreciate it if people would desist from interventions, because they take a lot of time away from people whose names are down to speak.

[Steve Witherden]

Schools must be equipped to teach boys and young men to hold themselves accountable to women and each other. That is essential to beginning the work of dismantling those toxic cultures and creating safer environments for all. Empowering young people with the knowledge and skills to challenge inequalities and change harmful norms would enable meaningful progress in preventing domestic violence. What discussions has the Minister, who I know is deeply committed to ending violence against women and girls, had with colleagues in the Department for Education about making awareness-raising and prevention work on domestic violence and domestic homicide a priority in schools? How are the Government supporting schools to tackle domestic violence at its core?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this debate.

This week in the main Chamber I highlighted the vital work carried out in my constituency by independent sexual violence advisers, who are on the frontline tackling increased violence against women and girls. However, not everyone is able to access support when they need it the most. Black and minoritised women, including women with disabilities and from LGBT+ communities, often face further barriers when reporting crimes to the police and accessing support from statutory services, including discrimination, language barriers or immigration status.

There is a real need for lived experience to inform the designing of services to ensure that they are run by and for marginalised women, to provide the vital culturally specific support that is often lacking in mainstream services. That support is desperately needed because, for example, deaf women are twice as likely to experience domestic violence as hearing women, and deaf children are three times more likely to than their hearing peers. Many of the perpetrators of that violence are also deaf, meaning that survivors are often left isolated, even within their own community.

SignHealth is the only by-and-for deaf domestic abuse service, and it provides all its support in British Sign Language. However, deaf domestic abuse services are generally small-scale, often with limited staffing and geographical reach—the ultimate postcode lottery. It is vital that deaf women and children have access to support from professionals who speak BSL as a first language, and I hope to see that sort of accessibility consideration in the Government’s plans for tackling violence against women and girls.

Research from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that by-and-for services are six times less likely to receive statutory funding, which leads to minoritised women being locked out of support. They recommended that a minimum total of £178 million from the overall funding settlement is ringfenced for specialist services, led by and for marginalised women. I know that the Minster is the biggest champion we could have in the Department. I hope she will work with organisations such as Refuge to ensure that specialised services are available for all women.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I commend Members on keeping their speeches brief. We now move on to the Front-Bench contributions.

Illegal Immigration

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate. Given the length of the opening speech, and the amount of time available, I will try to limit each Member to about five minutes, with the exception of the two Front Benchers. I call Fred Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

I have worked for the National Crime Agency in the past, and also in a counter-terror role. There are ways we can deal with this. The fact is that what the previous Government set up only dealt with the processing of those who arrived. The new border security command can bring in not just enforcement but disruption, which will ensure that people are not even getting on to the boats. There is not just one way of cracking this nut. If we bring in the likes of MI5, with new counter-terror powers, tools and a culture of disruption, then it can have a massive impact. I have been part of that in the past and have seen it happen, so it can work and I have full faith—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask for interventions to be quite short. Those who are intervening are subtracting time from those who want to speak later in the debate.

[Fred Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) for his intervention and his fantastic service to the nation. He worked in those organisations that keep us safe, and is not just commenting from the side.

The inheritance from the previous Government was dire. When Labour took office it was against the backdrop of record small-boat crossing numbers. The last number I saw for this year so far was 13,489; that is an astonishing number that represents a total loss of control. Of course we are not going to turn that around within nine weeks of being in office. Let us not forget the situation that we are inheriting.

Net migration has trebled since 2019. Meanwhile, the Rwanda scheme, which we have heard about today, has already cost taxpayers more than £700 million; we have sent four volunteers to Kigali—that is an expensive trip. Had the Conservatives returned to power, they intended to spend £10 billion over six years on the same failed policy. Will the Minister assure my neighbours, the people I represent and the armed forces community in Plymouth, that the situation is going to turn around under the new Labour Government?

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) for securing this important debate. It is a shame that there are not more Members here today.

I will choose my words very carefully in this debate, because words and language are important. We need to get tough in this place about the problem of illegal migration. I hear time and again that these people are fleeing war-torn countries—they are desperate people fleeing persecution. Well, let me say, I have been to France and it is quite a nice place. There is no war in France and they are not persecuted there. I served on the Home Affairs Committee for two years. I went to the camps in Calais, and the first thing we noticed was that it was all young men—there were no women, children or families. They were young men between the ages of 16 or 17 and 30. They all said the same thing to us: they would point at the white cliffs of Dover and say, “El Dorado”. They wanted to come to this country because they thought that the streets were paved with gold—and they are paved with gold, if someone is coming from a country such as Eritrea or Sudan.

The most annoying part for me was that there was a charity there called Care4Calais, which would attract those people. It would give them the co-ordinates in whichever country they came from, and it would take weeks or months for people to get there. Once they got to the camp, Care4Calais would set up a school to teach them how to speak and write English. It would give them new phones with data, give them shelter, and get them ready for the crossing to the UK. I take issue with the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, who said that once they get to England they are never leaving—it is once they get in the channel. Once they get in the channel they are picked up and ferried to our country. When they get to our country, they are placed in hotels—[Interruption.]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division. We normally add injury time to debates such as this. As soon as everybody is back in the Chamber, I will be in the Chair and any time we have lost as a result of the vote will be recouped.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

With injury time, the debate will now continue to 4.15 pm. I call Lee Anderson to continue.

[Lee Anderson]

Thank you, Sir Mark.

Once the illegal migrants—let us get the wording right: they are illegal migrants—get into this country, there is no way they are ever going to be deported. It only happens in very rare circumstances.

The most important thing for me is to get the terminology right. They are illegal migrants. They are young men coming into our country. Quite frankly—people can say what they want about me—I do not want these people in my country. They have broken into our country. They have thrown their documents away. They are undocumented. We do not know where they have come from. We do not know what they have been up to in their own country. We do not know whether they are criminals. We do not know what their intentions are when they get here.

We are a soft touch. These are illegal migrants posing as asylum seekers. We have heard some horrific cases over the past two years, with some of these illegal migrants being granted asylum status and then going on to commit horrific crimes—again, abusing our asylum system.

I get reports as a Member of Parliament, and I know my colleagues do, of young, undocumented men roaming around our town centres, intimidating people. That has to stop. Yet we see the non-governmental organisations, the lefty lawyers and the Labour party together encouraging these illegal migrants to come over the channel by using the same old slogan: “smash the gangs”. I am telling everyone in this room that that slogan is a complete nonsense. We have to stop the pull factor for people coming to this country.

Once these young men in northern France—I have to been to the camps—get into the channel, they are in this country. We may stop 100 boats a month, but those same people will get on to another boat and keep coming. Once they are in this country, they are going absolutely nowhere, and they are costing us a fortune. At the same time as we are waiting for the results of a vote to rob our pensioners of their winter fuel payment, supported by the Government, we are spending nearly £6 billion or £7 billion on illegal migration.

In the minute I have left, I will tell a quick story. In 1941, my grandad Charles William Waterfield left the Nottinghamshire coalfields. He left the pits before mining became a reserved occupation. He put a uniform on and went to north Africa. He left a wife and two children behind to fight for King and country. He did that. He did not run away. He did not go to another country and leave his wife and children behind, which is exactly what these young men are doing. They are leaving women and children behind in a supposedly war-torn country. Quite frankly, I do not want these sorts of people in my country and neither do the vast majority of the British public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

I apologise for my late arrival after the vote, Sir Mark. My constituency is Dover and Deal, so I have been engaging on this serious issue for a number of years and it means a lot to my constituents. The Labour party has made it clear that what matters to voters matters to us, too, and that is why we are taking this so seriously.

In 2018, 299 people crossed in small boats. Since then, we have had 136,000 crossings. The asylum backlog reached record highs, which has cost £8 million a day in hotels. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) made the point that we will speed up the processing and therefore grant more asylum claims, but the alternative is to have a backlog of five years that costs £8 million a day. We will also deport those who should not be here, which the Conservatives completely failed to do.

Our plan is sensible and pragmatic. The border security command, as I touched on earlier, is not the same as what was previously in place to deal with those arriving at the borders. It will work upstream and bring in counter-terror powers. Let us give that a chance—we have had eight weeks, so I am surprised even to be having this debate right now. We have had 13 flights off the ground, one of which was the largest on record. That is a show of intent as to exactly how seriously we take the matter.

My final point is that the Labour party has strong values on this. We believe in secure borders, but we play the ball, not the player. Those seeking a better life are doing nothing wrong, but we will secure the borders and take out the smuggling gangs.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

The number of Members wishing to speak has dwindled slightly since the Division, so I will relax the time limit from five to six minutes to more like seven to eight minutes. Members will have a bit longer. I know that does not help those who have already spoken, but they spoke before the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

Are you aware of the fact that they were steel-hulled vessels—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just say that if somebody intervenes, you should sit down?

[Mike Tapp]

If we attempt to do the same, we are likely to kill people in our waters. Is that what you want to see?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we move on to the Front-Bench contributions, may I remind some of the newer Members, who have been saying “you” or referring to other Members by name, that the convention is to refer either to the office that a Member holds, such as Prime Minister, or to the seat that they represent?