Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Q As you will have seen, we get lots of people in here who are very familiar with this place, and then every now and again we get people who are brave, committed and dedicated to making a change and making the world a better place. Thank you for coming and for all your campaigning on this issue. All power to your elbow.

How important are the measures in the Bill, and why? Is there anything that you think the Government should be doing beyond what is in the Bill?

Colin Mackie: I think this is majorly important. It is a giant step forward. Up until now, spiking has been a very grey area. It is charged as assault, theft, poisoning or whatever; it has been such a grey area that it has been hard to process it. That has the knock-on effect of putting victims off coming forward, because they do not know where they are going to go or what is going to be talked about, and they are unsure. Perpetrators of spiking feel, “Well, nothing’s really happening over this. I don’t hear of anybody getting charged for it, and it’s only a bit of fun; we don’t think we’re going to do any harm,” so they carry on doing it.

Having a stand-alone offence is beneficial for the victims, and I also think it is beneficial for the police. I feel that once a law is in place, you are going to get a co-ordinated response from police. Currently, victims in Newcastle are treated differently from victims in Newquay, and it is the same across the whole country. That is one of the major problems that victims tell us about all the time: some forces are great, while others are not so good. I have had one victim tell me that the police said they did not have the manpower or the time to go in and check the CCTV at the club where they were spiked. Another victim told me that uniformed officers turned up and were not sure how to deal with it, but half an hour later, the CID were there and straight into the club. We cannot have that inconsistency; we need to move forward with that.

You were asking earlier, “What can we do to help?” In bringing in the Bill, we have to involve A&E, because A&E has a big part to play in this as well. All too often, as you know, it is the job of the police to gather the evidence, but a spiking victim is likely to appear at a hospital—at A&E—unconscious or confused and not sure what is going on. They are not going to think about asking for a police officer to attend—they are not in a state to do that—so unless they have a family member or a friend there, that is not going to happen. By the time they get maybe two days down the line and think, “Yeah, this is what’s happened to me; I want to report this,” there is a good chance that a lot of the evidence has gone. We need that in the Bill as well: for A&E to play a bigger part by gathering evidence and holding it for the police. Then, if the victim wants to take it forward, it is there.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Q Thank you, Colin, for coming in today and, to echo the words of the shadow Minister, for all of the work that you do on this; it is really appreciated.

You mentioned that you welcome the clarification in the Bill, which will create a specific offence of spiking by using the word “spiking”. Can you expand on why that will make such a difference for victims? You mentioned some of the issues with the police using different types of offences. Why will it make such a difference to have a specific offence?

Colin Mackie: A victim will recognise that spiking is an offence when they approach the police. Currently they are not sure if they can report it. They are nervous and they are not sure if it is an offence. That has been a big thing that we get fed to us. Away from just the girls, there is a lot of spiking going on with boys now. Males are being spiked as well. It is possible that anybody could be spiked. That is a big thing, because we find that a lot of males think it is a girls’ problem. They think it is tied in with a sexual assault or whatever. If you just say “spiking” males will think, “Yeah, I have been spiked,” and that is it—it is the fact that they have been spiked.

A lot of spiking is now taking place and nothing else is happening. People are not being sexually assaulted or robbed; they are just being spiked. It is what we call prank spiking. People are doing it because they can. I think the ability for someone to come forward and just say, “Yes, I have been spiked and there is a law on spiking,” is the way forward.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you for that. One of the other things that you touched on—it was referenced by the previous witnesses—is the importance of not just making legislative change, but having a package of support available with the other agencies around it. What can you recommend beyond legislative changes—you mentioned A&E, but I am also thinking about training, guidance and so on—to really make sure that this is a package for spiking offences?

Colin Mackie: We certainly want to get the night-time industry more involved and get stewards more aware, because all too often one of the first things said to someone who has been spiked or their friends is, “They’re drunk. I want them out the club. They’ve had too much to drink.” When we talk to nightclubs, bars and so on, we say to the stewards, “Listen to what their friends are saying. Don’t make the assumption that that person’s drunk just because they look drunk. If their friends are saying, ‘We’ve had one or two drinks,’ take on board what they’re saying. Don’t just think, ‘Oh, no, I’ve got to get this person out of here.’” They have a duty of care to look after people, and we want them to take on that responsibility.

Just at the weekend, I was reading an article on the BBC and it was talking about nightclubs in general and how footfall is falling. One of the examples was that youngsters are stopping going to nightclubs because of the fear of spiking. The industry has to look at the bigger picture and realise that if it puts in lids and deterrents, better security and better CCTV, and, as we hope with this Bill, if we start to see people being prosecuted, the numbers will come back up. People will have the confidence to come out. If they think they are going to a venue where they feel they are going to be safe, they are more likely to come, whereas currently they are walking away and finding something else to do. It is going to affect the night-time industry as well, so it really has to take it more seriously.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you again for coming along and for your campaigning. You must be proud that you have got this leap—this legislation—to try to combat some of the trauma that you experienced.

I have a broader question. Do the measures included in the Bill cover all the issues that you see around the offence? Do you think the Bill is a comprehensive measure to enable action to be taken to combat the horrible offence of spiking?

Colin Mackie: It is moving forward to that level where I think it is good. I would like to see a wee bit more on the sentencing side of it. Just listening to the previous witnesses, I know that there is a backlog through the courts and everything, and I can see that being a problem. If the people who want to report spiking, especially young women, think it is going to last two years, how much of a deterrent is it going to be for them to come forward if they think it is going to drag on? That is one bit: when it comes to the sentencing and how quickly it will be processed, will that put people off reporting it?

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 25—Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after ‘subsection (10)’ insert ‘and sections 208A’.

(3) After that section insert—

‘208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),

(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and

(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.

(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—

(a) a curfew requirement;

(b) an exclusion requirement;

(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and

(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—

(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;

(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—

(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or

(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.

(5) In this section—

“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—

(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and

(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;

“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—

(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or

(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.

(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.

(7) Where—

(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),

(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and

(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,

notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’

(4) After section 292 insert—

‘292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),

(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and

(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.

(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—

(a) a curfew requirement;

(b) an exclusion requirement;

(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and

(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—

(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;

(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).

(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.

(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.

(7) Where—

(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),

(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and

(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,

notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’”

This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 25. As he will be aware, under the previous Government shop theft was allowed to increase at an alarming rate—it was up 23% in the year to September 2024—and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shop workers, as we have just debated.

This Government have committed to taking back our streets and restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, which is why we have brought in measures to address what is essentially immunity for so-called low-value shop theft, which the previous Conservative Government introduced. Shop theft of any amount is illegal, and by repealing section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, we will help to ensure that everyone fully understands that.

Under section 22A, theft of goods worth £200 and under from shops is tried summarily in the magistrates court. The previous Government argued the legislation was introduced to increase efficiency, by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low-value theft. However, it has not worked. Both offenders and retailers perceive this effective downgrading of shop theft as a licence to steal and escape any punishment. Clause 16 therefore repeals section 22A.

Let me be unequivocal: shoplifting of any goods of any value is unacceptable, and it is crucial that the crime is understood to be serious. With this change, there will no longer be a threshold categorising shop theft of goods worth £200 and under as “low-value”. By removing the financial threshold, we are sending a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. The change also makes it clear to retailers that we take this crime seriously and they should feel encouraged to report it.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s new clause 25. The Government take repeat and prolific offending extremely seriously. I remind the Committee that sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, who take into account all of the circumstances of the offence, the offender and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. In addition, as the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention has already said, previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor. Sentencing guidelines are clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.

The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence if they deem it suitable to do so. It is important to note that electronic monitoring is already available to the courts when passing a community or suspended sentence. However, it may not always be the most appropriate requirement for an offender’s sentence. We believe that the courts should retain a range of options at their disposal, to exercise their discretion to decide on the most appropriate sentence and requirements.

We cannot consider this issue in isolation. This is why we have launched an independent review of sentencing, chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishment outside of prison and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime. The review has been asked specifically to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that we have fewer crimes committed by those offenders. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, so that we are able to set out our plans for the future of sentencing in the round.

On this basis, I commend clause 16 to the Committee and ask the hon. Member for Stockton West not to move his new clause when it is reached later in our proceedings.

[Matt Vickers]

Shop thefts are on the increase, with recorded crime data showing 492,124 offences in the year—a 23% increase on the previous year. The British Retail Consortium 2025 retail crime report suggests that despite retailers spending a whopping £1.8 billion on prevention measures, such crime is at record levels, with losses from customer theft reaching £2.2 billion.

As things stand, shop theft is not a specific offence but constitutes theft under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. It is therefore triable either way—that is, either in a magistrates court or the Crown court. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, inserted by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides that where the value of goods is £200 or less, it is a summary-only offence. Clause 16 amends the 1980 Act, the 2014 Act and others to make theft from a shop triable either way, irrespective of the value of the goods.

Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

It is good to get rid of the perception, but it is all about the real-world consequences. As it stands, if there is such a perception, we need to smash it. People need to know that 90% of such charges relate to goods under the value of £200; it needs to be pushed out that this is a thing. When we look at retail crime overall, the biggest problem, which we tried to solve with our amendment to clause 15, is not only changing perceptions but ensuring that police forces realise that retail crime has huge consequences and needs to be prioritised. That is the fundamental problem, so it is about ensuring that the priorities are right. I do not think that changing the legislation in this space will solve that problem.

I want to go back to Oliver Sells, because I think he is a fascinating guy. He said:

“I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it, because they want to signify that an offence is a very important in relation to shop workers. I recognise that; I have tried many cases of assaults on shop workers and the like, which come up to the Crown court on appeal, and we all know the difficulties they cause, but you will not solve the problem.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 17, Q25.]

Sir Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor, added:

“First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.

Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.

It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.

What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, ‘That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.’ That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 18, Q26.]

The economic note for the legislation estimates that repealing the existing provision will result in approximately 2,100 additional Crown court cases in the first instance. It further states that, in the low scenario, cases entering the Crown court will not see an increase in average prison sentence length. In the high scenario, it assumes that these cases will now receive the average Crown court prison sentence, leading to an increase of 2.5 months per conviction. The central estimate falls between those extremes at 1.3 months, based on the assumption that cases involving theft under £200 are unlikely to receive the same sentences as those over £200.

That is reflected in a relatively wide range of possible prison sentences between the low and high estimates. What level of confidence can the Minister therefore provide on the number of people who will end up in prison, or end up in prison for longer, as a result of this move to the Crown court? Given that evidence, does this move, which appears to have a limited effect or outcome, outweigh the risk of prolonging the time it takes for victims to get justice, in the Minister’s view?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Let me address some of the points made by the shadow Minister, specifically on perception. There is a misconception that the threshold is used by police forces to determine whether to respond to reports of shoplifting, and that is simply not true. Police forces across England and Wales have committed to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to catching a perpetrator, and that includes shoplifting; however, as we have heard, the measure has impacted the perception of shop theft among retailers, and would-be perpetrators who believe that low-value shoplifting will go unpunished and that the offence is not being taken seriously. The clause will send a clear message to those planning to commit shop theft of goods worth any amount that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment.

Let me turn to the impact on our courts. It was quite heartening to finally hear the Opposition mention their concern about the impact on our Crown court backlogs, given how we got there in the first place. The Government recognise that the courts are under unprecedented pressure, and we have debated why that is on separate occasions; however, we do not anticipate that the measure will add to that impact. The vast majority of shop theft cases are currently dealt with swiftly in the magistrates court, and we do not expect that to change as a result of implementing the measure. Even with the current £200 threshold in place, defendants can elect for trial in the Crown court, but they do so infrequently. Removing the threshold and changing low-value shop theft to an either-way offence will not impact election rights, and is therefore unlikely to result in increased trials in the Crown court.

Separately, as the shadow Minister noted, in recognition of the courts being under unprecedented pressure due to the inheritance we received from the Tory Government, we have commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. It will recommend options for ambitious reform to deliver a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I want to understand the logic of what the Minister is saying. She seems to be saying that the change to allow cases to be heard in the Crown court will be a deterrent, but she does not envisage an increase in cases being heard in the Crown court. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that it is up to the defendant to elect where their case is heard, and that the conviction rate is actually lower in the Crown court? I am concerned about the unintended consequences that more cases could be heard in the Crown court, which is more expensive, and involves a judge and a jury, for stealing perhaps a bottle of wine. It is quite extraordinary.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns; he has pre-empted my next point. To confirm, it is already currently an electable either-way offence and the vast majority of cases are tried in the magistrates court, but I will come to the modelling and the percentages right now.

Based on current data from the magistrates courts, an average of 5% of individuals in the last three years charged with shop theft—of any value—proceed to trial or are committed for sentencing in the Crown court. Around 88% of shop theft cases involved goods valued at £200 or less. For cases of theft over £200, approximately 40% of cases went to the Crown court. We have modelled a low, central and high scenario within the published economic note on this measure. The low scenario assumes that 1% of charges for shop theft under £200 would proceed to the Crown court, with the central and high scenarios assuming 8% and 14% respectively. It is also important to note that we have expanded the sentencing powers of the magistrates court and extended sitting time in the Crown court to reduce the backlog. The increased sentencing powers in magistrates courts have freed up the extent of 2,000 further sitting days in Crown courts to enable them to be used for the most serious cases, which is what they are they for.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will not give way because I am conscious of time.

Let me turn to the final point on the impact on prison places, because the shadow Minister also raised concerns about that. Again, it is important to note that the Opposition are now raising concerns about the impact on our prisons after the inheritance we received from them. Prisons almost ran out of places last summer, which was a complete dereliction of duty and responsibility; they ran the prison system to the point of our entire criminal justice system collapsing. We, as a Government, have taken action to address that, and have carefully assessed how the change can be managed to ensure that we do not place further pressure on our prisons. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Just before we proceed, I am conscious that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East stood up, very late. I cannot make an exception, though he is pretty new here. When the Chair has called the Minister to wind up, there are then no further speeches. Prior to that, Members may intervene as often as they like. I am afraid we do have to stick by the rules.

Clause 17

Child criminal exploitation

Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 42, page 46, line 31, at end insert—

“(7) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 33 (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), after the entry for section 10 insert—

‘section 11 (engaging in sexual activity in presence of child)’.”

This amendment excepts the offence of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

The clause makes a series of important changes to the existing criminal law by amending a number of serious sexual offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Consequently, I am delighted to talk about the clause, to explain what it does and its importance, and to give a little of the interesting history behind the law in the area, which I hope will inform the Committee.

The key legislation, which we will debate throughout the passage of the Bill, is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which followed a full and extensive consultation entitled, “Setting the Boundaries”, and significantly modernised and strengthened the laws on sexual offences in England and Wales, mainly to provide extra protection for children from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. The 2003 Act amalgamated and replaced elements of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and the Sex Offenders Act 1997.

The 2003 Act was the first major overhaul of sexual offences legislation for more than a century, and it set out a strong, clear and modern approach to this sensitive area of the law. The Act set clear limits and boundaries about behaviour with children, and reflects what we know today about the patterns and impact of sexual abuse in childhood. It was designed to meet the 21st-century challenges of protecting children, and applies to issues such as internet pornography and grooming children for sexual abuse. The Act also contained measures against abuse by people who work with children, and updated the laws on sexual abuse within families, acknowledging that children can be at risk from within families.

All those measures were designed to provide a clear and effective set of laws to deter and punish abusers, giving the police and the courts the up-to-date offences that they needed to do their job, while ensuring that children have the strongest possible protection under the law. The Act widened the definition of some offences —for example, bringing the non-consensual penile penetration of the mouth within the definition of rape under section 1 of the Act. It created new offences for behaviour that was not previously covered specifically by an offence—for example, the paying for the sexual service of a child and voyeurism. It also extended the age covered by certain offences against children from 16 to 18 and, importantly, gave additional protection to vulnerable adults. The Act provides rightly robust sentences that reflect the seriousness of the offending.

“Setting the Boundaries” was a groundbreaking review, covering some of the most heinous and disturbing areas of offending. The then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who commissioned the review, stressed that point when he wrote in the review’s foreword:

“Rape and other sexual offences of all kinds are dreadful crimes which deeply affect the lives of victims and their families, and whole communities. Modernising and strengthening the law can make a direct contribution to our aim of creating a safe, just and tolerant society. We give particular priority to the protection of children, and welcome the emphasis the review has given to increasing this protection and also that of vulnerable people.”

He went on to say that he

“set up the review to consider the existing law on sex offences, and to make recommendations for clear and coherent offences that protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation, and enable abusers to be appropriately punished.”

The review’s

“recommendations also had to be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.”

Today, the Government remain of the view that our priority is to ensure that the public, including society’s most vulnerable, are given the full protection that the law is capable of offering. It is vital that society is protected from the scourge of sexual abuse, manipulation and exploitation in all of its forms. Children, of course, require additional protection from that awful offending. It is vital that we ensure that the criminal law is kept fully up to date in this area to ensure the safety of vulnerable young people.

With regards to children, the review itself acknowledged:

“The criminal law performs a vital role in society by setting standards of acceptable and unacceptable conduct. In making certain types of sexual behaviour criminal, the law provides protection, and supports and maintains the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in the family and community. Children need particular protection in the field of sexual relations because they are physically and emotionally dependent and not yet fully physically or psychologically mature. The law has long held that children are not, and should not, be able to consent to any form of sexual activity in the same way as adults.”

Indeed, the response to the review’s initial invitation to contribute ideas as of January 1999 overwhelmingly supported increasing the level of protection from sexual abuse available to children.

In addition, the review found that:

“The victims of sexual violence and coercion are mainly women. They must be offered protection and redress, and the law must ensure that male victims/survivors are protected too…The law must make special provision for those who are too young or otherwise not able to look after themselves and offer greater protection to children and vulnerable people within the looser structures of modern families.”

That still remains the case. We must continue to ensure that the criminal law keeps up to date with developments, and ensure that police, prosecutors and the courts are fully equipped to deal with this grave offending. We need to offer full protection to victims of such appalling abuse and exploitation.

The review recommended that as a matter of public policy the age of legal consent should remain at 16. However, to provide further protection for younger children, the review recommended that the law:

“setting out specific offences against children should state that below the age of 13 a child cannot effectively consent to sexual activity”.

As a result, the 2003 Act contains a range of offences that target specifically those who sexually abuse children under the age of 13 years. For example, sections 5 to 8 of the 2003 Act provide a range of offences capturing sexual activity with a child under 13, and it is very clear that consent in these offences is irrelevant. A child under 13 does not, under any circumstances, have the legal capacity to consent to any form of sexual activity.

Those under-13 offences overlap to a very significant extent with the child sex offences at sections 9 to 15 of the 2003 Act, which are designed to protect children under 16. This is to ensure that the criminal law provides the youngest and most vulnerable in society with protection from sexual abuse, and in doing so provides higher maximum sentences for these very serious offences. Under-13 offences are offences of strict liability as to age. The prosecution must prove only two facts: first, that there was intentional sexual activity, and secondly, the age of the complainant at the date of the sexual activity—for example, by a certified copy of a birth certificate, together with evidence of identity.

The principle of strict liability as to age for victims under 13 years old is reflected in the terms of other sexual offences in the 2003 Act. That includes section 11 of the Act, the offence of engaging in sexual activity with a child. That particular offence is one that will be directly amended and affected by provisions proposed in clause 42. While the 2003 Act—and the many amendments and additions to that legislation over the years, rightly championed by Members across this House—provided robust offences to deal with sexual abuse, we are introducing provisions to tighten up the law further to ensure additional protection for those who need it.

Broadly, we are amending and thereby strengthening the current suite of offences that apply where a person engages in sexual activity in the presence of a specified individual, for example child or, in certain circumstances, a person with a mental disorder. Our provisions will amend and toughen up the following offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: section 11, “Engaging in sexual activity in presence of child”; section 18, “Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child”; section 32, “Engaging in sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder impeding choice”; section 36, “Engaging in sexual activity in presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of person with mental disorder”; and section 40, “Care workers: sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder”.

For example, it is currently a criminal offence under section 11 of the 2003 Act for a person, “A”, to intentionally engage in sexual activity to gain sexual gratification when a child under the age of 16, “B”, is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, but currently only when A knows or believes that B is aware—or intends that they be aware—that A is engaging in the sexual activity. This offence carries a maximum 10 years’ imprisonment and sexual offender management requirements. Significantly, this offence does not allow a defence of reasonable belief in age if the child is under 13.

The issue of concern here, and with the range of similar offences that I have listed, is the requirement that the defendant should know or believe that the victim is aware of his behaviour, or intend that the victim should be aware of the relevant activity. These requirements may initially appear reasonable. However, they mean this offence would not, for example, capture those who commit sexual activity in the presence of a child for sexual gratification, and who obtain such gratification from the presence of the child—even if the child is apparently unaware of the activity happening in their presence. If the defendant is performing a sexual act in the presence of a child who is asleep and gains sexual gratification from that mere presence, he cannot be charged under the existing section 11 offence; nor, for example, could he be charged for his behaviour if the child was pretending to be asleep—even pretending out of sheer terror—while aware of the appalling behaviour being carried out, if the defendant believed the child to be asleep and therefore unaware of what was going on.

I am sure hon. Members will agree that the criminal law being unable to prosecute such behaviour in this example scenario is unacceptable. The Government strongly believe this flaw must be rectified as a matter of urgency, to ensure that children and other specific groups of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by the criminal law and not denied justice should they become victims of such behaviour.

These amendments are not mere technicalities, nor are they addressing pseudo-philosophical “What if?” scenarios. They are a direct and swift response to concerns expressed by those on the frontline: the police, who have to come face-to-face with the consequences of this disturbing and damaging offending.

We have listened carefully to those on the frontline who are dealing with this awful behaviour. They have provided us with evidence of the difficulties in prosecuting a small number of nevertheless worrying cases, in which it was clear that the perpetrator engaged in the sexual activity because they obtained sexual gratification from a child’s mere presence, but where there was insufficient evidence that the perpetrator knew, believed, or intended that the child was aware of the sexual activity.

These things are happening now. Such offenders are slipping through the net. It may only be in small numbers, but that is irrelevant when dealing with this level of offending and exploitation. This disturbing, unpleasant and damaging behaviour must not go unchecked by the justice system or by the law. It must not go unpunished. Our provisions will ensure that the law is able to make sure that it does not.

We believe it is entirely wrong that, for example, a defendant masturbating while standing next to a child’s bed—to obtain sexual gratification from the child’s presence—cannot be convicted if they successfully argue they did not believe the child was aware of the sexual activity. In such a case we think it is entirely right that the person should be guilty of a criminal offence. We also want to ensure that these behaviours are capable of being prosecuted in future. This is not just to bring offenders to justice but, importantly, to be able to manage these sexual offenders when they are eventually released into the community, and to prevent further offending, where there is specifically potential for further sexual offences against children or vulnerable adults.

It is clear that some people may legitimately engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child—say a couple who live in a one-bedroom flat and by necessity have to sleep with a baby or very young child in the room. Others may have to have a young child in the room for the monitoring of health problems and so forth. We can all think of legitimate examples. I must make it clear that we do not want to criminalise those people who engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child but not for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification from the child’s presence. In those circumstances, the presence of the child is purely incidental. We have deliberately drafted our provisions to ensure that those people will not be criminalised.

To exclude such behaviour from being captured within the relevant range of offences, we have retained the requirement for a direct link between the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and the activity occurring in the child’s presence. I hope that that assures hon. Members that our provisions have been carefully crafted to rightly exclude those who may legitimately engage in sexual activity when a child is merely present. The Government’s intention with this clause is to capture the criminally culpable, not the innocent.

Government amendment 12 seems a relatively modest amendment but, again, it is an important one. It adds the offence of sexual activity in the presence of a child at section 11 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to schedule 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The effect of this amendment is to thereby remove the section 11 offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence available at section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members of the importance of these provisions and of the necessity for swift action on our part.

Sexual offending, particularly against children and the most vulnerable, is a deeply distressing area of the law, and one that I know affects even legislators when considering reform, as we are today in this Committee. Over the years, the nature of sexual abuse, offending, manipulation and exploitation has changed, and it continues to change. Alongside the changing nature of offending, with which the law must keep up, gaps in the existing law are coming to light, highlighting those cases where serious offenders may be able to slip through the net of even the most well-intentioned and crafted drafting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

As we have heard, clause 42 effectively incorporates provisions that had been included in the Criminal Justice Bill and is a key provision concerning sexual offences, specifically focusing on the offence of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.

The clause makes an important amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which forms a core legislative framework addressing sexual offences in the UK. In particular, clause 42 expands on the existing provisions to enhance the protection of children from sexual exploitation and harm.

Under the Sexual Offences Act, certain sexual offences are committed when a child is involved, such as sexual activity involving children, or causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. However, one area that has been highlighted for reform involves situations where a child might be exposed to sexual activity in a way that, while not directly involving them in the act, still results in harm.

Prior to the introduction of clause 42, the law did not adequately address situations where a child was the passive observer of a sexual activity. For instance, in scenarios where an adult or adults engage in sexual activity with each other in the presence of a child, the law might not have captured this activity as an offence, despite the potential psychological harm to the child. Clause 42 seeks to close this gap by making it an offence for an adult to engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child. This means that any sexual activity taking place in the physical presence of a child, even if the child is not directly involved in the sexual conduct, could now result in criminal liability.

The clause expands the scope of existing sexual offence laws to include situations that may not necessarily involve the direct participation of the child, but still expose the child to inappropriate activity or material that could be damaging to their wellbeing.

Clause 42 also sees parallel offences involving sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder, impeding their choice, and similar provisions in the Sexual Offences Act. Those individuals, too, might not fully understand the sexual nature of what the offender is doing. Previously, there might have been the same issue with the law of requiring awareness. Clause 42 offers a broad safeguard for those who cannot consent or comprehend.

The clause seeks to offer further protection for children by recognising the potential harm caused by exposure to sexual activity, even if it is not directed at them. The law would now acknowledge that witnessing such an act could have a detrimental impact on the child’s emotional, physiological, psychological or developmental health.

Although we support the clause, I seek clarity from the Minister on a couple of points. In situations where sexual activity takes place in private or behind closed doors, it might be difficult to establish whether a child was present or the extent of their exposure to the activity. Proving the impact on the child could also be challenging, particularly where psychological harm or emotional distress is not immediately apparent. What discussions has the Minister had on that matter? I note that, as we have discussed a number of times today, Government amendment 14 carves out an important exception of the offence from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Clause 42 represents an important development in child protection law. At present, as the Minister has said, an offence is committed only where a person knows or believes that the child or person with a mental disorder is aware of the activity, or where a person intends that the child or person with a mental disorder be aware of the activity.

The provisions will amend these offences to capture situations where, for the purpose of sexual gratification, a person intentionally engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child, even if they do not intend for the child to be aware of the activity. The examples covered by this amendment are clearly heinous, and we welcome the clause.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments and the fact that the Opposition welcome the clause to close this loophole to protect children and the most vulnerable.

Hopefully I have outlined how we carefully crafted the clause to ensure that we do not capture those who innocently engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child, and not for the purposes of sexual gratification. We do not want to criminalise those who have to share a bedroom with a baby, a young child or somebody with a health condition, and are not seeking sexual gratification from engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child. We have worked very closely with partners and stakeholders to ensure the law is crafted carefully so that we do not criminalise those people. The clause seeks to criminalise only those perpetrators who seek to gain sexual gratification from the presence of a child, whether the child knows or not.

I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Child sex offences: grooming aggravating factor

[Harriet Cross]

I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 43, page 48, line 23, at end insert—

“70B Group-based sexual grooming of a child

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a court is considering the seriousness of a specified child sex offences,

(b) the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming, and

(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed.

(2) The court—

(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming as an aggravated factor, and

(b) must state in court that the offence is so aggravated.

(3) An offence is ‘aggravated by group-based grooming’ if—

(a) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, the offender, who was involved in group-based grooming, or

(b) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, a person other than the offender grooming a person under the age of 18 and the offender knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know that said person was participating, or facilitating group-based grooming, or

(c) the offender intentionally arranges or facilitates something that the offender intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in order to participate in group-based grooming.

(4) In this section ‘specified child sex offence’ means—

(a) an offence within any of subsections (5) to (7), or

(b) an inchoate offence in relation to any such offence.

(5) An offence is within this subsection if it is—

(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),

(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),

(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),

(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child sex offences),

(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),

(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),

(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or

(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children).

(6) An offence is within this subsection if it is—

(a) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),

(b) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),

(c) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or

(d) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism),

and the victim or intended victim was under the age of 18.

(7) An offence is within this subsection if it is an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) ‘group-based grooming’ is defined as a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims who are under 18, or could reasonably be expected to be under 18.”.

This amendment would introduce a specific aggravating factor in sentencing for those who participate in, or facilitate, group-based sexual offending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Opposition Front Benchers for tabling amendment 42 and new clauses 47 to 49. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate—in particular, the hon. Member for Windsor, who gave a thoughtful contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, a good friend who has worked his entire career to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve. His passionate contribution to the debate reminds us all exactly why we are here in this place: to deliver for victims of these heinous crimes, to make sure that the perpetrators receive the full force of the law, and to ensure that any gaps in legislation and recommendations of inquiries are followed through with. That is exactly what we are doing today.

Before I respond to the amendments, I will explain the rationale for clause 43. I am pleased to speak to it, and I know that its provisions have been welcomed by hon. Members across the House. In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile cases involving so-called grooming gangs—groups of offenders involved in heinous child sexual exploitation—including those in Rotherham, Telford, Newcastle, Rochdale and Oxford. In February 2022, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended

“the strengthening of the response of the criminal justice system by…amending the Sentencing Act 2020 to provide a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing those convicted of offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children.”

The Government want to ensure that the sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of child sexual abuse and exploitation. In January, the Home Secretary committed to

“legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, because the punishment must fit the terrible crime”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 632.]

Clause 43 will require courts to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing for specified child sex offences, including rape and sexual assault. It will capture offenders whose offending is facilitated by, or involves, the grooming of a person under 18. The grooming itself need not be sexual.

The measure will capture models of exploitation not currently directly addressed by existing culpability factors. It will create an obligation on courts to aggravate sentences where the offence has been facilitated by grooming undertaken by either the offender or a third party, for example where an offender assaults a victim who has been groomed by another member of a grooming gang. It will also capture instances where grooming is undertaken against a third party, for example where a victim has been groomed to recruit others.

The measure requires the courts to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing in relation to any of the listed child sex offences. However, I must be clear that it will be in the court’s discretion to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing for any offence, where it is relevant to the offending, regardless of the age of the victim.

I understand that the Opposition’s intention with their amendment 42 is to require courts to consider group-based grooming as a specific aggravating factor when sentencing sexual offences committed against children. Clause 43 already requires courts to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing for specified child sex offences. This includes, but is not limited to, offences facilitated by or involving the group-based grooming of a child. An aggravating factor makes an offence more serious and must be considered by the court when deciding the length of the sentence.

The Sentencing Council’s overarching guidelines make

“offence committed as part of a group”

an aggravating factor. That means that, when sentencing for grooming gang offences, a court will be able to aggravate the offence to take into account the grooming behaviour, and then additionally aggravate the offence to take into account the fact that the offending was committed as part of a group. An aggravating factor for group-based grooming, as proposed in amendment 42, would be likely to have a more limited application, as the court could not apply the factor unless it was satisfied that the offender was a member of a group, which may be difficult to prove.

Clause 43 will go further than existing sentencing guidelines, by capturing models of group-based exploitation that are not currently directly addressed by grooming high-culpability factors. It will create an obligation on courts to aggravate sentences in instances where the offence has been facilitated by grooming undertaken by either the offender or a third party, for example where an offender assaults a victim who has been groomed by another member of a grooming gang or group. It will also capture instances where grooming is undertaken against a third party, for example where a victim has been groomed to recruit others. For that reason, I urge Opposition Members not to press amendment 42.

New clause 47 seeks to establish a statutory national inquiry into grooming gangs. It therefore seeks to revisit the questions considered by the seven-year-long independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Opposition tabled similar amendments—maybe even identical ones—on the basis that the independent inquiry “barely touches on” grooming gangs.

IICSA, as is common practice for a public inquiry, involved a series of smaller inquiries and investigations of different strands. One of those inquiries was on child sexual exploitation by organised networks—the entire focus of that inquiry was grooming gangs. It took two years and reported three years ago, in February 2022. It is clear from cross-refencing new clause 47 with the scope of the previous investigations into grooming gangs that it seeks to revisit questions already examined by the inquiry. For example, subsection (2)(a) of the new clause seeks an inquiry into grooming gangs to

“identify common patterns of behaviour and offending”.

However, the scope of the previous grooming gangs inquiry states that it will investigate “the nature” of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs. I could go on and on.

If we continue to call for inquiry after inquiry along the same lines, we will undermine the whole system of public inquiries, including public trust in them and public tolerance for the resources of the state that they demand. Therefore, rather than engage in gesture politics by re-running inquiries without the evidence and data that we need, it makes sense to take the Government’s approach, with Baroness Louise Casey’s audit there to fill in the gaps that have already been identified by the previous inquiry. That audit is well under way, as we heard today in the Chamber from my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister, and it will report in due course.

The Government are also setting up a new victims and survivors panel, not just to guide Ministers on the design, delivery and implementation of the plans of IICSA, but to produce wider work on child sexual exploitation and abuse. Elsewhere in the Bill, we are making it mandatory to report child sexual abuse, and we will be making it an offence to prevent such reports from being made, as well as introducing further measures to tackle those organising online child sex abuse. As I have set out, we are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences.

New clause 48 seeks to identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs and require regular reporting on the same. The 2022 inquiry into grooming gangs identified widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims, and inconsistency of definitions in the data, which has meant that the limited research available relies on poor-quality data. The child sexual exploitation police taskforce already collects and publishes ethnicity data on group-based child sexual exploitation. However, we are committed to improving that data, and we have asked the taskforce to expand the ethnicity data that it collects and publishes. Baroness Casey’s audit will also look to uncover the gaps in current knowledge and understanding of grooming gang crimes, including ethnicity, which will inform our future work.

Finally, new clause 49 would require ethnicity data on sex offenders to be published on a quarterly and yearly basis. The ethnicity of those convicted of sex offences is already available in the “outcomes by offence” data tool. The data is published by the Ministry of Justice quarterly, and it is available in the public domain. The new clause would, in effect, require the duplication of data that is already available pertaining to the ethnicity of convicted sex offenders.

In conclusion, not only are new clauses 47 to 49 unnecessary, but they detract from the Government’s vital work to tackle the crimes of grooming gangs and other sex offenders. On that basis, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan not to move them when they are reached later in our proceedings.

[Harriet Cross]

I will keep my comments brief. I thank everyone who has contributed; I appreciate that this issue raises tensions. I know that no matter what side of the House we are on and no matter what angle we come at this from, everyone wants what is best for children and to prevent any sort of gang-based grooming or sexual violence against them. Any approach we can take to prevent that is one that we should consider. I listened to every word that the hon. Member for Cardiff West said and I understand it, but anything we are able to do to make a difference, I want done. I do not care which side of the House does it—I really do not.

Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 8.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am very pleased to be able to speak to these provisions.

We live our lives surrounded by technology that allows us to take photographs or record film at the click of a button. Laptops, tablets, smartphones, smart TVs and minute cameras and recording devices have revolutionised our lives, but they do not come without the very real risk that they can be used for nefarious purposes, such as taking intimate images of a person without their knowledge or consent.

The scale of this problem is growing. When the Law Commission carried out its detailed review of the law in this area in 2020 to 2022, it found that the police recorded at least 28,201 reports of disclosing private sexual images without consent between April 2015 and December 2021. Only three years later, a Women and Equalities Committee investigation showed that the Revenge Porn Helpline went from receiving 3,200 cases in 2020 to 22,276 in 2024. Those figures include only those reporting to the helpline. As we are all aware, many, many more individuals may not report.

I have huge respect for the work of the Revenge Porn Helpline, which is committed to supporting victims. The Government and the wider violence against women and girls sector have moved away from using the terminology “revenge porn”. Let us be clear: it is not revenge. Nothing a victim could ever do justifies any kind of abuse. It is not an act of revenge; it is an act of abuse. It is also not pornography. The participant is not consenting, and the subject never intended it to be available for public viewing. It is non-consensual intimate image abuse.

The Government share the Women and Equalities Committee’s concerns. We have committed to halving violence against women and girls, who make up the majority of victims of intimate image abuse. Taking an intimate image of someone without their consent is a violation. Victims can experience significant harm and trauma. It can impact every aspect of their lives, from their physical and mental health to their relationships and careers. It is therefore vital that our legal framework deals effectively with that behaviour.

That type of offending needs to be seen as part of the wider landscape of sexual violence and sexual offending. It may be carried out by those who are also committing the most abhorrent physical sexual offences. That was so in the case of Gisèle Pelicot, whose husband was caught because he was taking photographs under women’s clothing—an act similar to those covered by the upskirting offence in England and Wales. As is evident in that case and many others, intimate image abuse can be the beginning of an escalation, or can go hand in hand with those already perpetrating violent sexual crimes. If we can catch it early, perhaps we can prevent or stop further abuse in its tracks.

We know that there is a relationship between online and offline violent misogyny. We also know that many perpetrators start their campaigns of abuse with apparent low-level sexual offences. Sarah Everard’s murderer had indecently exposed himself before he went on to brutally rape and murder her. The escalation is clear in both the online and the offline world. The Pelicot case shows that intimate image abuse cannot be viewed in isolation; it is part of wider violence against women and girls. That is why the Government, in this clause, are cracking down on the perpetrators of violence against women and girls in all its forms. Those perpetrators need to be stopped and held accountable for their crimes. As Gisèle Pelicot said:

“it’s not for us to have shame—it’s for them”.

Existing law does address some of that behaviour, but it is far from comprehensive and effective. The previous Government introduced some new offences in this area to tackle sharing intimate images without consent, but they did not go far enough. They did not have the bravery or political will to take a real stand against this type of abuse, introducing offences on intimate image abuse in their Criminal Justice Bill, which they allowed to fall in favour of attempting to re-elect a failing Prime Minister and a failing Government. This has gone on long enough. That is why, in our first year in office and in our first crime and justice Bill, we are now doing what they should have done and are addressing the taking of those images, the first step in this type of offending.

The clause and schedule we are discussing build on what we have already done in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexual deepfakes. In that Bill, we introduced a new offence of creating purported intimate images—more commonly known as deepfakes—without consent, or reasonable belief in consent. We have also introduced an offence of requesting the creation of such an image without consent or reasonable belief in consent. Those new offences will tackle a rapidly proliferating area of offending, providing further protection for victims.

The taking of real intimate images needs to be tackled as well, however. The taking of intimate images without consent is not new. It has been possible for many years, from analogue cameras through digital cameras to the ease of the smartphone. The law has rightly criminalised some of that behaviour, but changing technology has made it even easier to take such images. Only last week, The Sunday Times reported on the widespread practice of individuals installing covert cameras in order to secretly record intimate images of women getting changed at swimming pools. Some of that behaviour is already covered by existing offences, but we want to ensure that the law is consistent and comprehensive, and captures all the behaviour that it should, giving the police and the Crown Prosecution Service the tools to tackle it.

At the moment, taking such images is covered by the offence set out in section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is part of a wider set of offences in sections 67 and 67A, which cover “observing” and “recording” of individuals in certain intimate circumstances without their consent. Section 67(3) provides for an offence of recording images of a person “doing a private act” if the person recording it intends that he, or a third party, will gain sexual gratification from looking at the image, and the person recording knows that the person in the photo does not consent to being recorded with that intention. That means that the prosecution has to prove the perpetrator’s intent and that they knew that the person in the photo had not consented to being recorded for that purpose.

The voyeurism offences also include the so-called upskirting offence in section 67A of the 2003 Act, which covers recording images, without consent or reasonable belief in consent, of a person’s genitals or buttocks, or underwear covering them, under a person’s clothes. The offence has different intent elements from the section 67 offence and a different definition of the photographs taken. Those differences were among many issues looked at by the Law Commission, which in 2019 was asked to review in detail the law on taking, making and sharing intimate images without consent. The commission submitted a final report in 2022, “Intimate image abuse”, which recommended a comprehensive suite of intimate image abuse offences to ensure that the law was consistent and coherent. We agree that that is what is needed. Consistent law will be easier to understand and to work with, ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice.

As I mentioned, the previous Government made some changes on sharing offences, but they left the law in a mess. We now have a situation where the offences relating to taking and to sharing intimate images without consent are not consistent. Different definitions of the images are covered and they include different intent elements. The Government will not tolerate that.

To address such offending properly and consistently, we will repeal two of the existing voyeurism offences, relating to

“recording a person doing a private act”

and

“recording an image beneath a person’s clothing”—

the so-called upskirting offence—and replace them with three new criminal offences to tackle the taking or recording of intimate images without consent.

The base offence will be of taking or recording an intimate image without consent or a reasonable belief in consent. That offence carries no requirement to prove that the taking or recording was done for a particular reason. There will also be two more serious offences of taking or recording an intimate image without consent and with the intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or without consent or reasonable belief in consent for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.

Consent must be at the heart of this new offence. It is the key element, and one that is long overdue. Previously, the onus was on the defence to prove that the accused intended to cause harm. Now, we are moving to a consent-based model that centres the autonomy of the victim. Consent is the most important element of any law of this nature. I am not interested in what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own relationship; what this Government are interested in is that, where consent is not given, the perpetrators are punished appropriately and the victim receives the justice they deserve for the violation and abhorrent abuse that they have experienced.

Crucially, these offences will all use the definition of a person in an “intimate state”, which covers images in which the person’s buttocks, genitals or breasts are exposed or covered with underwear; images depicting the person engaging in a sexual act of a sort not usually seen in public; and images showing the person using the toilet. That is broader than the current definition and provides a consistent definition across all the intimate image abuse offences, providing a package of offences.

These changes are important and overdue, but we will not stop there. One of our other concerns about the current law relates to people installing equipment in order for them, or someone else, to take an intimate image without consent. Section 67(4) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence for someone to install equipment, or construct or adapt a structure, or any part of a structure, to enable someone to commit the offence of observing a person doing a private act. That means that I commit an offence if I drill a hole in a changing room wall to allow myself or someone else to spy on people getting changed for sexual gratification, knowing that those getting changed do not consent to being observed for this purpose. That is currently an offence even if I never actually use the hole to spy on those people—merely adapting the structure is sufficient.

However, the offence in section 67(4) of the 2003 Act is limited to installing equipment or adapting structures in relation to observing victims, not recording photographs or videos of them. That means that if I install a spy camera in the wall of a changing room so that I, or someone else, can remotely take photographs or videos of people getting changed, I am not committing that offence. I would have to have actually taken the photographs for that offence to have been committed. That cannot be right.

The new offence to be inserted at section 66 of the 2003 Act will change that. To address concerns about the increasing use of spy cameras to record people in public bathrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms or holiday lets, it will be an offence to install equipment with the intention to enable anyone, whether the installer or a third party, to commit one of the taking offences. To address the harmful and culpable nature of that behaviour in and of itself, it will not be necessary for any images to have been taken using the equipment.

These offences will build on the sharing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to provide a holistic package of offences using the same definitions and core elements. That addresses the criticisms of the patchwork nature of the existing law, which has resulted in gaps in protection for victims. On top of that, we know that being a victim of one of these crimes can be humiliating and degrading, and that victims can be overwhelmed by shame and embarrassment despite having done nothing wrong. It is therefore vitally important that victims will automatically be eligible for lifelong anonymity.

We are also ensuring that those convicted of the new offences of taking or recording an intimate image for sexual gratification, or installing with the intent to enable the commission of that offence, may be subject to notification requirements. That means that they can be monitored in the community, helping the police to keep the public safer from these predators. The courts can already deprive offenders of the images and the devices on which they are held upon conviction for non-consensual sharing of an intimate image. We will update the sentencing code to give courts the same powers, upon conviction, for intimate images taken without consent. I am grateful to the Law Commission for its extensive review of the law relating to intimate images and its well-considered recommendations upon which these new provisions are based.

I also extend my gratitude to all those who took the time to contribute their views, knowledge and experience, particularly the victims. The courage needed to speak out about these crimes cannot be overestimated, and we are indebted to those brave victims who have shared their experiences so powerfully. We are also grateful to the bodies representing the police, prosecutors and legal practitioners. This allowed us to hear from experts in this area, from those supporting and campaigning on behalf of victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to follow the powerful and well-researched contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh.

In the digital age, the non-consensual capture and distribution of intimate images and the act of voyeurism have become all too common. Clause 56, which seeks to confront these violations and better protect individuals’ privacy and dignity, is one that I am happy to support, and I thank the Minister for so clearly setting out the case. The clause expands existing laws to criminalise the non-consensual taking of intimate images, including instances such as downblousing, the creation and distribution of digitally altered images such as deepfakes without consent, and the installation of equipment intended to capture intimate images without consent. All are in response to the recommendation from the Law Commission’s 2022 report on intimate image abuse.

The digital landscape has facilitated new forms of abuse, often with devastating consequences. Refuge has reported that one in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images—that is 4.4 million people. The Revenge Porn Helpline has detailed the rise in those figures—it received nearly 19,000 reports in 2023, marking a 106% increase from 2022, and a tenfold rise over five years.

I also welcome the Minister framing this crime in the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. There is a clear gender disparity when it comes to this crime. In 71% of cases, the victim is female and in over 81% of cases, the perpetrator is male. Those statistics underscore the urgent need for legal reforms to address and deter such abuses effectively, and to protect women and girls overwhelmingly. However, as we have heard frequently in Committee, it will also be critical that the measures are matched with improved enforcement. The sharing of intimate images has been illegal since 2015, and threatening to share intimate images has been a crime since 2021 but, shamefully, perpetrators are rarely held to account.

Data published by Refuge in 2023 showed that conviction rates for intimate abuse remain woefully low, with only 4% of cases that are reported to the police resulting in perpetrators being charged. I share Refuge’s view that that must improve. I was also shocked to learn that there remains a gap in the law where non-consensual images remain on perpetrators’ devices even after a conviction. That must be incredibly distressing for those affected by this crime. I ask the Minister to outline what provisions are in place to protect the dignity of victims, so that perpetrators are compelled to delete any non-consensual images.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion, which has been deeply moving at times, particularly when it has touched on the impact on victims in all our constituencies and how widespread and horrific the problem is. That stresses the importance of us tackling it in the Bill.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, mentioned sextortion, as did other hon. Members. It is a growing problem. Just this week, its impact—on young men as well as young women—was highlighted on “Good Morning Britain”. Sextortion is already covered by existing offences; we feel that it is already tackled. We are aware that it happens primarily online on social media platforms. Thankfully, the codes of practice that Ofcom is introducing under the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023 will compel platforms to do more to tackle this horrific abuse. However, it is already a crime, and I stress that any victim or survivor who is struggling with it should report it to the relevant authorities—to the police and to the social media platforms directly—because action should be taken to tackle it and the powers and offences to do so are available. These crimes have caused tragic suicides, and I would encourage anyone struggling to reach out and tell someone to contact the Revenge Porn Helpline, which is there to offer assistance and support. It is a brilliant resource, as has been highlighted.

The hon. Member for Windsor asked about deprivation orders, I believe, and how we can ensure that these images are removed from devices so that victims are not retraumatised but protected. We are updating sentencing guidelines, to ensure that that measure is available to the courts—that devices can be taken off perpetrators and the images removed so that victims retain their dignity and are not being revictimised consistently.

This has been a very important discussion, highlighting just how important these measures are. I commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 57

Exposure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The clause provides for a modest but important reform to strengthen the offence of exposure in section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Currently, the offence, which carries a two-year maximum prison sentence, is committed when a person intentionally exposes their genitals and intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. Importantly, the offence—subject to certain conditions—attracts sexual offender notification requirements. That means that qualifying offenders released into the community will be required to notify the police of their personal details. Offenders have to provide their local police station with a record of, among other things, their name, address, date of birth and national insurance number.

In “Modernising Communications Offences: A final report”, published in 2021, the Law Commission noted evidence in response to its public consultation that suggested that the intention to cause alarm or distress was “too narrow” a mental element for this offence. The commission highlighted the fact that sexual gratification and a desire to humiliate the victim were among the major drivers of exposure. Under the existing criminal law, if a person exposes their genitals to another with the intention to humiliate, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and does not also have an intention to cause alarm or distress, the behaviour is not captured by the exposure offence in section 66 of the 2003 Act. If a person is exposing themselves only with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification and with no intent to cause alarm or distress, that is currently insufficient to commit the section 66 offence.

Crown Prosecution Service guidance makes that point clear and suggests that, in such cases, charging with the offence of outraging public decency should be considered. However, depending on the circumstances, outraging public decency might not be an appropriate or valid charge. That offence is committed only when someone does something lewd, obscene or disgusting in the presence of at least two members of the public. The offence requires at least two people to have witnessed the act or been capable of witnessing it, so if, for example, someone exposes themselves to a lone woman for sexual gratification, that very disturbing behaviour would not currently be captured by the outraging public decency offence—and it would not be captured by the existing sexual offence of exposure. If someone were to expose themselves, for sexual gratification, to a person in a private dwelling rather than in public, the behaviour would not fall within the terms of that offence, either. Furthermore, and very importantly, the offence of outraging public decency does not attract sexual offender registration requirements. On release, therefore, the additional protection to society that effective sex offender management provides would not apply to such an offender, even if they carried out the behaviour specifically to obtain sexual gratification.

It is important that we recognise the seriousness of the offence of exposure in the 2003 Act. For victims, it is clearly a disturbing and frightening experience, which can have lasting effects. It is a serious sexual offence that can be identified as a signal of potential for escalation towards even more serious and violent offences. Sadly, we have seen that time and again. Although what I am about to discuss is by no means the only example of escalation of sexual offences, it is perhaps one of the most prominent in recent history. It is one that I know has stayed with all of us across the House, and no one more so than the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, my very good and right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham. I pay tribute to the way she and her community have coped with the devastation of this tragic event five years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

The clause aims to strengthen the protections for individuals from indecent exposure, and to ensure that our communities remain safe and respectful spaces for all. It seeks to provide clearer definitions and stricter penalties for offences involving indecent exposure so that perpetrators of such offences are held accountable and victims receive the justice that they deserve for this sexual crime.

While sometimes dismissed as minor, exposure of this kind can have a significant psychological and emotional impact on victims. It is not a trivial matter and can often be a precursor to more severe offences, as we saw with the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, and it contributes to a climate of fear and discomfort in public spaces. Multiple incidents of indecent exposure were linked to the convicted murderer of Sarah Everard before the tragic events of her death in March 2021. In 2015 and 2020, allegations of indecent exposure were made against him in Kent, where he was said to have exposed himself in public. Those reports were not fully investigated at the time. In February 2021, just days before he abducted and murdered Sarah Everard, he was reported to police for exposing himself to staff at a McDonald’s drive-through in Kent. Despite that report being made on 28 February, no meaningful action was taken prior to the murder, which occurred on 3 March. Those incidents have since been heavily scrutinised during inquests and reviews, revealing systematic failures in policing responses to sexual offences, especially so-called lower-level offences such as exposure.

While I welcome the expansion of the scope of this offence through clause 57, I urge police to use the new powers and treat these crimes as the serious crimes that they are. They can be a warning of even worse crimes to come. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the College of Policing guidance is being changed appropriately. Being subjected to indecent exposure by a stranger while walking home can leave a woman with lasting trauma. Such behaviour is unacceptable and should be met with appropriate consequences.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Windsor for his important contribution. It is right that we expand the scope of the offence to ensure that all victims are properly protected and that perpetrators are brought to adequate justice. As he rightly pointed out, justice is a system; it needs every part to work. We need to ensure that the police are equipped with the guidance, training and tools to go after these foul perpetrators—they need to know what to do, what to look for and who to find. They should be taking this seriously, so I am glad that the College of Policing guidance is now in place. We need the CPS to have the offences available to charge the perpetrators—that is what this Bill will provide—and then we need the court system to be available to hear the cases so that justice can be brought.

The shadow Minister sought reassurance that perpetrators would be brought to justice. As I have just outlined, we are assured that we have all the tools available; we just need to stop these acts taking place. This modest but vital step is part of our wider strategy to halve violence against women and girls. These crimes may be low level and classed as non-contact, but sadly we all know what happens when they escalate. It is important that we take them seriously and have robust laws in place to deal with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Sexual activity with a corpse

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I feel that I should provide hon. Members with a content warning before I discuss what this new offence does, and it is probably quite important that we are doing this before lunch. Clause 58 is on a gruesome but none the less important issue. The clause introduces an amendment by expanding the law on sexual activity with a corpse—a distinct and abhorrent type of offending, as shown in the recent case of David Fuller. The sheer horror and repulsiveness of the crime cannot be overstated. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families of those subject to the offence, who have been profoundly affected by these unimaginable, heinous acts. The clause will address a wider range of such despicable behaviour and mark the beginning of a very important step towards ensuring justice for all. We are committed to stopping all such behaviour by making a significant change today. I would like to take a moment to set out the history of the offence.

The Labour Government introduced the Sexual Offences Act 2003 after a full and extensive consultation called “Setting the Boundaries”. It significantly modernised and strengthened the laws on sexual offences in England and Wales. One of the key recommendations from “Setting the Boundaries” was the inclusion of the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse, in chapter 8, “Other Offences”. At the time, the consultation said:

“It came as a surprise to most members of the review that there was no such protection in law for human remains and that necrophilia was not illegal.”

That is why the recommendation was simply put that sexual penetration of a corpse needed to be a criminal offence. Then and now, a Labour Government have demonstrated the importance of getting such legislation right to prevent such heinous behaviour. The commitment was evident then and remains even more crucial now.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the independent inquiry for its thorough investigation into the horrific acts committed by David Fuller in the mortuaries of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells hospitals. The interim report, published on 15 October 2024, provides essential preliminary findings and recommendations for the funeral sector, highlighting areas that require attention. We eagerly await the final report and will carefully consider its findings to ensure that such atrocities are never repeated. At the core of our efforts, we remain deeply mindful of the families of those subjected to the offence. Their pain and suffering are unimaginable, and our thoughts are with them. We are grateful to the families of the deceased who have bravely come forward to speak publicly about their experiences in the hopes of making lasting change. We understand that revisiting these traumatic events is incredibly painful, and we are truly sorry for any additional distress caused by bringing these matters up in Parliament, but their voices are vital in ensuring justice.

Police officers have played a vital role in explaining the immense challenges faced while gathering evidence for the courts. Their painstaking work in sifting through the horrific images and explaining the evidence was crucial. Without their efforts, we might not have fully understood the importance of broadening the offence to include sexual touching. Their dedication and professionalism have been instrumental in bringing David Fuller to justice. David Fuller is serving a whole life sentence for his abhorrent crimes. As Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb stated during the sentencing, his

“actions go against everything that is right and humane. They are incomprehensible”

and

“had no regard for the dignity of the dead.”

These words resonate deeply with all of us, reinforcing the importance of upholding the dignity of, and respect for, those who have passed.

We are committed to ensuring that justice is secured for the families of the deceased in all cases of sexual activity with a corpse, not just in cases of penetration. That is why the clause repeals the existing offence of sexual penetration of a corpse in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and replaces it with a broader offence of sexual activity with a corpse. The broader offence still criminalises sexual penetration of a corpse, but it also criminalises non-penetrative sexual touching, adding it into the criminal law for the first time. It increases the maximum penalty for sexual penetration of a corpse from two to seven years’ imprisonment. Where penetration is not involved, the maximum penalty will be five years’ imprisonment. The new offence will be committed whenever a person intentionally touches the body of a dead person if they know they are dead or are reckless as to whether the person they are touching is dead, and the touching is sexual. Touching is already defined in section 79(8) of the 2003 Act.

We want to ensure that criminal law is robust and comprehensive, effectively addressing the harm caused by this reprehensible behaviour. It is imperative that our criminal law evolves to encompass additional forms of abuse, particularly those that violate the dignity and sanctity of individuals both alive and deceased. By broadening the offence to include non-penetrative actions, such as the sexual touching of a corpse, the law will be more robust, ensuring that perpetrators cannot escape justice.

Our commitment extends beyond merely updating the law and involves a holistic approach to justice that prioritises respect for those affected. We strive to create an environment in which such heinous acts are met with the strongest possible legal repercussions, ensuring that justice is served and, importantly, that the families of the deceased receive the support and closure they so rightly deserve. I commend clause 58 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

The clause updates and strengthens the current offence of sexual activity involving a corpse, as set out in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The revised provisions broaden the scope of the offence by replacing the term “sexual penetration” with the more encompassing term “sexual activity”. The clause replicates a provision of the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the 2024 general election. The change ensures that any form of intentional sexual touching of a dead body—not just acts of penetration—will be captured by the law.

Many members of the public are shocked to hear that these vile and horrific offences take place, and will be further shocked that some of this activity is not covered by the law. Currently, section 70 of the 2003 Act defines the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse. That offence applies when a person intentionally sexually penetrates the body of a deceased individual, and knows or is reckless as to whether the body is that of a deceased person. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

As the Minister mentioned, the provision was notably used in the high-profile case of David Fuller, a former hospital electrician who was convicted under section 70 for multiple instances of sexual penetration involving the bodies of at least 100 women and girls in hospital mortuaries. However, the current scope of section 70 does not extend to non-penetrative sexual acts, so it could not have been used to prosecute further allegations against Fuller relating to other forms of sexual activity with the bodies of his victims. Under this legislation, a person commits an offence if they intentionally touch a part of a dead person’s body, with that touching being sexual in nature, and if they either know or are reckless as to the fact that the body is that of a deceased person.

The clause also provides a new, tiered sentencing structure. Where the sexual activity involves penetration, the offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. In all other cases, the maximum penalty is five years. These sentencing thresholds aim to reflect the seriousness of the conduct, while allowing courts flexibility to reflect the nature of the offence. The new offence introduces different maximum sentences depending on whether penetration is involved. Can the Minister explain how these sentencing thresholds were determined, and have the Government considered how the updated offence aligns with comparable offences in other jurisdictions? Does this bring us into line with international best practice?

[Jack Rankin]

There have been some truly harrowing cases that have exposed the inadequacies of our current legal framework in this regard. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister highlighted, the case of David Fuller is the obvious and most extreme example—a hospital electrician who, over 12 years, sexually abused the bodies of more than 100 women and girls in women and mortuaries. His crimes went undetected for decades, revealing significant systematic failure. I fully support the clause that the Minister has outlined, particularly because, as Baroness Noakes has highlighted during parliamentary debates, had Fuller not been convicted of murder, he might have faced only a minimal sentence for his other offences.

I have several critical questions on clause 58. I appreciate that the clause would significantly increase the penalty, but are those proposed penalties sufficient? Given the gravity of these offences, should the maximum sentence not be even higher, so that it serves as a stronger deterrent? Take the example of David Fuller. If we had caught him before the murder, under the provisions of the Bill, would he have been given seven years, and is that enough? What safeguards are in place? How can institutions, especially hospitals and funeral homes, implement stricter protocols to prevent such abuses? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. How do we support the victims’ families? Beyond legal measures, what support systems are available to help families to cope with the trauma inflicted by disgusting crimes such as this? Clause 58 is clearly a necessary and long overdue reform that acknowledges the sanctity of the deceased and the rights of the families, and provides greater justice for those who can no longer speak for themselves. I welcome it.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Windsor. Both touched on sentencing, and I am happy to address their questions. We have considered a range of options. Increasing the statutory maximum for section 70 to seven years is in keeping with the other serious contact offences in the Sexual Offences Act, while it remains lower than most of the serious contact sexual offences against living victims. Sexual assault and rape, for example, have a maximum penalty of 10 years and life imprisonment respectively. The statutory maximum set out in the clause is for a single offence. If a person receives multiple convictions for this offence, or if that offence is committed alongside other offences, then the court may adjust the overall sentence to reflect the totality of the offending in the ordinary way.

We also heard strong evidence of the harm caused by this offending to victims’ families and believe that two years does not reflect the harm caused. We have, therefore, considered, in particular, the serious emotional and psychological distress and the feelings of shame and embarrassment that the families undergo, knowing that the bodies of their loved ones have been sexually abused. It is therefore right that the new law takes

“Concealment, destruction, defilement or dismemberment of the body”

as a factor that indicates high culpability on the part of the offender, and that a more serious punishment may, therefore, be appropriate.

I remind hon. Members that we currently have a sentencing review in place, which is reviewing all the offences available and looking at this. That independent review is ongoing and we anticipate that it will report this year. We are also aware that the Law Commission is considering a review of the criminal law around the desecration of bodies as part of its next programme of law reform. We are currently discussing the possibility of looking into this with it. Let me reassure Members that we are not stopping and that we will not hesitate to go further if required.

On the support available for victims, I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Windsor that victim support is always available for anyone who has been a victim of crime, whether or not that crime has been reported to the police. I encourage any victim, survivor or family to reach out to victim support. The Ministry of Justice funds a number of victim support organisations and provides grants to local police and crime commissioners to provide tailored support in their areas for whatever they feel is necessary. We also have the victims’ code, which outlines exactly what victims are entitled to if they have been a victim of crime, and support is one of the many elements available to them there. I encourage anyone to reach out and seek the support that is available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Notification of name change

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 59, page 59, line 11, at end insert—

“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.