Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is a privilege to support the Government’s action to tackle cuckooing through the Bill. As the Member of Parliament for Gravesham, this issue strikes close to home, because people in my constituency who are struggling with addiction, mental health issues or past trauma are being preyed on. Criminals take over their homes, exploit their vulnerabilities and use their properties to conduct criminal activities, in particular drug dealing. These are not abstract concerns. People living real lives in real streets in Gravesham are trapped by fear in what should be the safest place they know—their own homes.

The introduction of the new offence is not only welcome, but essential. For the first time, the Bill offers a clear and focused legal mechanism to tackle an abhorrent practice that existing legislation cannot fully capture. I place on record my strong support for the Government’s action. I will also highlight why the offence is necessary, the real-world impact of the practice on victims, and how the Government’s work helps to close a dangerous and damaging gap in the law that has persisted for far too long.

Why does this offence matter? Cuckooing is one of the most insidious and devastating forms of criminal exploitation in our communities today. It targets those who are already vulnerable, whether due to substance misuse, disability and mental health, poverty, homelessness or previous victimisation. The offender may initially appear as a friend or helper, and may offer company, drugs, money or protection. Very quickly, however, the true nature of that relationship emerges through control, coercion, fear and potentially violence.

Victims find themselves trapped, as they are often too frightened, ashamed or traumatised to seek help. We have heard from frontline services such as Kent police and Gravesham borough council’s community safety unit that victims do not even recognise that they are victims at all. They may blame themselves. They may have rationalised the situation and believe that they have no other choice.

At present, the law does not make it easy to intervene early or decisively. Police often find themselves attending reports of suspicious activity, but have no obvious offence to charge without the victim’s co-operation or an underlying crime, such as drug possession, being proven. The new offence addresses that critical gap. It criminalises the very act of exerting control over someone else’s home for the purpose of criminal activity, without them having to verbalise their non-consent and without demanding that underlying offences must first be proven. The offence acknowledges that controlling a person’s home is itself serious and harmful abuse. It also empowers police, local authorities and safeguarding teams to take earlier, firmer action to protect victims before exploitation escalates further. The Bill listens to communities and acts on their behalf.

The Bill defines such control clearly. Clauses 32 to 34 are framed to show real understanding of the complexities involved. The Bill clearly defines “control” to include subtle and partial takeovers, such as deciding who enters the property, what it is used for and whether the resident can use their own home. The Bill also covers a wide range of structures, including houses, flats, caravans, tents and vehicles, reflecting the reality of vulnerable people. It ensures that supposed consent must be freely given and informed by someone over the age of 18 with full capacity, protecting those most at risk of coercion. The Bill is future-proofed by clause 34, which allows the Home Secretary and the devolved Ministers to add new crimes to the relevant offence list as patterns of exploitation evolve over time—we know that they evolve over time.

To understand why the offence is so urgently is needed, we must listen to survivors. Take the story of James, which was shared by the Salvation Army. James was a young man struggling with addiction. He thought he had made friends, but soon those friends took over his flat. They brought drugs and violence into his home. Strangers came and went at all hours. James was trapped—afraid to leave, but no longer safe inside. When help finally reached him, James was a shell of himself. He had lost control of his life, his space and his dignity. He said later:

“It’s scary. Your house is taken over. You don’t know who’s knocking on your door. People coming to your door every two minutes. Threatening people in your home. Threatening me in my home. It totally takes over your life.”

James’s story is heartbreaking, but far from unique. Housing teams and police officers in Gravesham have listed multiple cases where individuals were forced into drug addiction by their own exploiters to increase their dependency. Homes have been used to store class A drugs without the tenant’s knowledge, which is a clear breach of tenancy guidelines and puts them at risk of eviction. Sheds and garages become secondary sites of exploitation.

That is the story of James and many others in Gravesham, but the national statistics show the sheer scale of the problem. One in eight people across the UK has seen signs of cuckooing in their community. During just two weeks of national police action, nearly 1,700 cuckooed addresses were visited and hundreds of victims exposed. In 2021 alone, 33% of all modern slavery referrals include criminal exploitation, much of it linked to cuckooing. County lines exploitation, where cuckooing is rampant, now accounts for a staggering 16% of national referral mechanism cases.

This change to the law is not only needed; it is desperately needed. I could go on, but I know other hon. Members wish to speak. I am proud to stand here to support the new measures on cuckooing. Hopefully, we may now put those criminals behind bars, where they belong.

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

I rise to speak to clauses 32 to 34 and amendment 5. Clause 32 in part 4 of the Bill seeks to address cuckooing by introducing a new criminal offence targeting those who exert control over another’s home for criminal purposes. Cuckooing is a deeply exploitative crime that targets some of the most vulnerable people in society, including the elderly, those with disabilities and individuals struggling with addiction or mental health issues. Criminals manipulate or threaten people to take over their home, or do it forcibly, using the home as a base for illegal activities such as drug dealing, human trafficking or weapons storage. Victims often live in fear and isolation, unable to escape due to coercion or physical violence.

In 2022, London saw a significant rise in the number of recorded cuckooing incidents, with 316 cases reported, marking a stark increase from just 79 in 2018. That alarming trend in the city underscores the increasingly widespread nature of criminal exploitation targeting vulnerable individuals. The impact extends beyond individuals, affecting communities by increasing crime rates, disrupting social housing and straining law enforcement resources. Cuckooing is not just a property crime; it is a form of exploitation that strips people of their safety, dignity and control over their lives, making it essential to impose strict penalties and provide robust support for victims.

Clause 32 is a welcome step forward in tackling the exploitative nature of cuckooing and the vulnerable individuals impacted by it. However, while the clause’s intentions are commendable, it is crucial that we examine the provisions thoroughly, not only to understand its strengths but to ensure that it does not inadvertently create unintended legal or practical challenges. The clause seeks to criminalise the act of exercising control over another person’s dwelling without their consent with the intent of using a dwelling to facilitate specific criminal activities. That is designed to target individuals who exploit vulnerable occupants by taking over their homes to conduct illegal operations.

Looking at the key provisions of clause 32, an individual commits an offence if they exercise control over another person’s dwelling without legitimate consent and intend to use it for criminality. The clause is accompanied by schedule 5, which lists the criminal activities associated with cuckooing, such as drug offences, sexual exploitation and the possession of offensive weapons. The Secretary of State holds the authority to amend this schedule as necessary. For consent to be considered valid, the occupant must be over the age of 18, possess the mental capacity to consent, be fully informed and provide consent freely without coercion or manipulation. Consent obtained through deception or intimidation is not deemed valid.

On conviction, the offence carries significant penalties. On summary conviction, an individual may face imprisonment of up to six months, a fine or both. On indictment, the penalty can extend to imprisonment of up to five years, a fine or both. The primary objective of clause 32 is to safeguard individuals from criminals who commandeer their houses for illegal purposes. By establishing a specific offence of cuckooing, the legislation aims to deter perpetrators and provide law enforcement with clear authority to intervene and prosecute these exploitative practices.

Although the intentions behind clause 32 are commendable, we must look at areas of possible contention. On determining genuine consent, assessing whether consent is freely given with full understanding can be complex. Vulnerable individuals may be subject to subtle forms of coercion or manipulation that are not immediately evident, making it challenging to establish the presence of genuine consent. Furthermore, effective enforcement of the clause requires adequate training and resources for law enforcement agencies to identify instances of cuckooing, to support victims and to gather sufficient evidence for prosecution. Without proper investment, the practical application of the law may be hindered.

There is a concern that victims of cuckooing might themselves be implicated in criminal activities conducted in their dwellings. It is crucial to ensure that the law distinguishes between perpetrators and victims, providing support and protection to the latter, rather than subjecting them to prosecution. Criminal networks may adapt their methods to circumvent the provisions of clause 32. Continuous monitoring and potential amendments to the legislation may be necessary to address emerging forms of exploitative activities efficiently.

Clause 32 represents a significant step forward in addressing the pernicious issue of cuckooing. By criminalising the exploitation of individuals through the unauthorised control of their homes for illicit purposes, the clause aims to detect vulnerable members of society and uphold the integrity of private dwellings. Careful attention must, however, be given to the implementation of the provision, ensuring that genuine consent is accurately assessed, enforcement agencies are adequately resourced, victims are protected from criminalisation, and the law remains responsive to the evolving tactics of criminal enterprises. Through vigilant application and ongoing evaluation, clause 32 can serve as a robust tool in the fight against the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and for the preservation of community safety.

Clause 33 is interpretative, as its primary objectives are to provide clear definitions for terms in the Bill. It ensures that all stakeholders have a consistent understanding of the terminology. Although the intention behind the clause is to provide clarity, certain challenges may arise. If a term is defined too broadly, it may encompass behaviours or actions beyond the intended scope, leading to potential overreach. Conversely, overly narrow definitions may exclude certain areas from being covered, creating loopholes. Differences in interpretation can arise between various stakeholders, especially if definitions are not comprehensive, which can lead to the inconsistent application of the law across different jurisdictions.

For example, a dwelling is defined as being any structure or part of a structure where a person lives, including yards, garages, gardens and outbuildings. The definition also extends to temporary or moveable structures such as tents, caravans, vehicles and boats. Through the wide definition of dwelling, including not just the traditional home but temporary and moveable structures, the clause ensures that cuckooing can be addressed in a wider range of living situations. That is particularly important, given that vulnerable people may live in non-traditional housing and still fall victim to such exploitation.

Clause 34 grants the Secretary of State the authority to amend the definition of “relevant offence” through a statutory instrument. This provision is designed to provide flexibility and responsiveness to the legal system, enabling it to evolve with the changing landscape of criminal activity and societal needs. The primary purpose of clause 34 is to offer the Government the flexibility to adapt the law where needed. As we know, crime is constantly evolving; new tactics, methods and forms of criminal activity emerge regularly. In recent years, we have seen a rise in cyber-crime, human trafficking, online fraud and terrorist activity. Those types of crime often involve technologies or methods that are not always immediately recognised or understood by the legislation at the point it is being made.

Laws must remain relevant and effective to protect the public. For example, if new criminal activities or trends emerge that were not originally accounted for in the Bill, clause 34 allows for a quick amendment to qualify what is a relevant offence. That flexibility means that rapid changes can be made without having to wait months for a new Act of Parliament to be passed. Over time, societal attitudes, technologies and criminal methods change, so what is considered a relevant offence now may not necessarily apply in future. Clause 34 allows the legal framework to be adjusted to ensure that the law can keep pace with such changes.

In addition to providing flexibility, clause 34 ensures that the law remains consistent in its approach to new forms of crime. Although the definition of “relevant offence” can change, the core intention is to maintain fairness, clarity and public safety. By allowing for a timely and consistent updating of legal definitions, clause 34 helps to ensure that criminal offences are properly recognised across the country. That is important because inconsistent definitions for offences can create legal confusion and undermine effective enforcement across jurisdictions. A standardised approach ensures that law enforcement agencies in different areas can uniformly apply the law, thereby strengthening the overall criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

The clause introduces provisions relating to protections for witnesses and the concept of lifestyle offences. The provisions seek to enhance both the effectiveness of our justice system and the protection of vulnerable individuals, but there are also some important concerns that must be carefully considered.

The core purpose of the clause lies in two key areas: providing stronger protections for witnesses involved in criminal investigations and prosecutions; and addressing lifestyle offences, which are crimes that become part of an individual’s habitual way of life, often tied to organised criminality or repeat offenders. One of the main aims of the clause is to offer greater safety and security for witnesses. We all know that witnesses are an essential part of our criminal justice process. Without them, many crimes would go unpunished and justice could not be served. However, witnesses, especially those in cases involving organised crime or serious offences, often face significant risks, including intimidation, threats of violence and retaliation.

The clause seeks to address those dangers by providing stronger legal protections for witnesses, ensuring that they feel safe enough to come forward and testify. This provision is particularly crucial in cases involving organised crime, gang violence or terrorism, where a witness might be particularly vulnerable. The protections include mechanisms to ensure that witnesses’ identities are kept confidential, and in extreme cases, provisions for relocation or even new identities. By making it safer for witnesses to testify, we ensure that those who know the truth can stand up for justice without fear for their life.

Furthermore, the clause allows for alternative means of giving evidence, such as by video link or in written statements, in cases where giving testimony in person would put the witness at risk. The protections are a vital step towards maintaining the integrity of the legal system, particularly when individuals are reluctant to engage due to fears of reprisals. It is the Government’s intention that by ensuring witness safety, the overall effectiveness of criminal investigations and prosecutions will be enhanced.

The second intention behind the clause is to address lifestyle offences—a term that refers to crimes associated with the habitual behaviour of certain offenders. These offences often form part of a broader pattern of criminal activity and are typically linked to individuals involved in organised crime, or those who consistently engage in criminal behaviour as a way of life. The inclusion of lifestyle offences in the Bill aims to target those who commit repeated or ongoing crimes, to disrupt their criminal activities.

The idea behind lifestyle offences is to shift the focus from seeing crime as an isolated act, to understanding that certain individuals or groups are involved in criminal activity as part of their everyday life. Many offenders are involved in organised crime networks, such as drug trafficking, money laundering or human trafficking, and their activities extend far beyond a one-time offence. The intention is to create legal measures that are specifically tailored to address the ongoing nature of their offending. This is not just about punishing individuals for one-off crimes, but intervening in the criminal lifestyles that perpetuate organised crime, breaking the cycle of repeat offending and reducing long-term harm.

By addressing those crimes within the framework of lifestyle offences, the Bill seeks to prevent future crimes and provide opportunities for rehabilitation. It aims to provide intervention strategies for offenders whose lifestyle choices revolve around illegal activity, encouraging them to turn away from crime. This approach seeks to address not just the symptoms of criminal behaviour, but the root causes, whether related to socioeconomic factors, addiction or mental health.

Although the protections for witnesses and the focus on lifestyle offences are both positive steps, several issues must be considered carefully to ensure that the clause is applied fairly and effectively. One significant concern is the potential for overreliance on witness protection schemes. Although it is essential that we offer the best protection possible for vulnerable witnesses, there is a danger that we could rely too heavily on these measures, which may not always be the most appropriate solution.

Witness protection, particularly when it involves relocation or changes of a person’s identity, can be extremely resource-intensive. It is also crucial that the system is not misused. Witnesses should not be encouraged to give evidence under duress or false pretences simply because they are promised protection. The integrity of the justice system must remain intact, and there is a risk that overusing or misusing witness protection could undermine its integrity. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Could the hon. Lady give us an example of the sort of case she is concerned about?

[Harriet Cross]

It is not beyond belief that, for example, a witness involved in a rival gangs situation could be coerced or forced to give evidence for a gang-related offence, whether or not it is necessarily true. Witnesses can be vulnerable in many different many ways. Witnesses can be completely innocent, but they can also be part of the crime. We need to ensure that the witness protection system is protected, because that is the best way to ensure that our criminal justice system is protected.

[Jess Phillips]

I understand the premise of witness protection and the clause that is in the Government Bill. The hon. Lady has raised a concern about witness protection being used to affect the independence of the judiciary. I wondered whether she had an example of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I do not have a specific example, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility. None of what we are dealing with is necessarily a reaction to individual cases. We create law in order to pre-empt things that may happen. It is reasonable for the Opposition to pre-empt something that may happen to ensure that it is considered when drafting a Bill. It is a completely reasonable concern for the Opposition to raise.

Finally, there are concerns about potential for witness protection schemes to undermine the right to a fair trial. If a witness is protected to such an extent that their testimony cannot be scrutinised or cross-examined fully, it could raise issues about the fairness of the trial. Clause 35 does aim, however, to offer much-needed protections for witnesses, particularly those involved in cases of organised crime or serious criminal activity. The inclusion of lifestyle offences recognises the ongoing nature of certain types of criminality, targeting habitual offences and providing opportunities for intervention.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the very thorough speech that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan just made. I am a little concerned that she may have misunderstood what the clause attempts to do, which is to support victims and those who are vulnerable in their ability to give evidence in court, such as by enabling them to give it by video link or behind a screen, because we know that it can be quite intimidating to be in court. As the hon. Lady said, if there are people who victims are concerned or frightened about, and they worry there will be repercussions, then putting in those measures seems to be a sensible way forward.

I have not come across the specific issue with witness protection that the hon. Lady mentioned. She referred to people being relocated and moved away. The provisions within this part of the Bill are reasonable measures to address the vulnerabilities of people who may find themselves subject to child criminal exploitation or cuckooing. We are not doing anything in this clause that goes beyond what is already in place for other vulnerable witnesses in court. It is not doing anything in addition to what is already accepted as good practice for those with vulnerabilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Child sexual abuse image-generators

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

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

Clause 36 criminalises artificial intelligence image generators used by offenders to create the most severe child abuse imagery. Child sexual abuse offenders use fine-tuned AI models to generate photorealistic child sexual abuse material. These images often depict the most severe and graphic forms of abuse, and can feature real children. Child sexual abuse offenders also sell those models to other offenders, making significant profits.

Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal, but the fine-tuned models that facilitate the creation of child sexual abuse material are not currently. The Government are therefore making it illegal to possess, make, adapt, supply or offer to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, and that offence will be punishable by up to five years in prison.

Government amendment 11 is a consequential amendment that adds the new image generator offence to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015—I feel like this will get said a lot over the next few weeks—thereby removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence in section 45 of the 2015 Act. We believe that introducing this new offence will give law enforcement the powers it needs to combat the use of AI to create the most severe forms of child sexual abuse material.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 36 introduces a new criminal offence targeting what are termed child sexual abuse image generators. Simply put, it will make it illegal to make, possess or distribute any tool—an AI model, computer program or digital file—designed to create indecent images of children. It addresses what has been up to now a concerning gap in the legislation. We know that technology is advancing to the point at which artificial intelligence can produce realistic child abuse images without any child being photographed.

If someone deliberately develops or shares software to generate child sexual abuse material, they are enabling heinous crimes, so it is right that clause 36 makes that explicitly illegal and punishable. The clause introduces new sections to the Sexual Offences Act 2023. It defines a CSA image generator in deliberately broad terms, covering any program or data created for producing child sexual abuse images. That breadth is essential to prevent offenders from evading liability through technical arguments about, for example, what constitutes a photograph in the digital age. Whether it is an AI model trained on abusive images, a computer-generated image rendering program or any digital template for indecent images of children, it will fall within this ban.

Government amendment 11 ensures that the offence is added to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act. That is an important safeguard to prevent offenders from claiming that they were victims of trafficking to escape liability for creating these abhorrent tools. It is entirely appropriate that this offence, like other serious sexual offences against children, should be exempt from the slavery defence. Although we must of course protect genuine victims of trafficking, that exemption is necessary to prevent abuse by removing the defence in cases involving the deliberate facilitating of child sexual abuse.

Clause 36 is a proactive step taken against emerging threats. The previous Conservative Government started focusing on the dangers of AI-generated child abuse images, and I am pleased that the current Government are continuing with that.

[David Burton-Sampson]

The former Conservative Member for Chelmsford tabled an amendment on this matter to the Criminal Justice Bill, which Labour supported in opposition, but unfortunately it was not added. Is the hon. Lady now happy that this measure is being added to the Crime and Policing Bill?

[Harriet Cross]

Yes, I think I just said that. I am pleased that the Government are continuing with this measure.

The clause aligns with the Conservative approach to zero tolerance for child exploitation technology. We built the foundations of that in 2015 through the paedophile manuals offence, and the law is now being updated for the digital age.

I have two quick questions for the Minister. What plans are in place to identify and intercept CSA image generators online once this offence is enacted? Will there be proactive efforts, working with internet companies, for example, and internationally, to root out these tools before they are spread? How do the Government plan to ensure that legitimate AI research and development is not inadvertently captured by this offence, while ensuring that all genuinely harmful tools are prohibited?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Clause 37 amends section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to criminalise the possession of advice or guidance on using artificial intelligence to create child abuse imagery. So-called paedophile manuals that contain guidance for offenders about how to abuse children sexually or create indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs are illegal under the existing offence in the 2015 Act. However, the Act does not cover guidance for offenders about how to use AI to create illegal images of children, because back in 2015 we did not know what “AI” meant.

Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal. Clause 37 strengthens that law to include guidance on using AI to create child sexual abuse images. As now, the maximum penalty for the expanded offence is three years’ imprisonment and a fine. Government amendment 12 adds the paedophile manual offence to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act, thereby removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence in section 45 of that Act. Amendments 20 to 22 are consequential on amendment 12. We believe that this extension of the paedophile manuals offence will close a legislative gap and give law enforcement the powers that it needs to combat the use of AI to create the most severe forms of child sexual abuse material.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 37 strengthens the existing law to address evolving predator behaviours. It extends section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, the offence commonly known as possessing a paedophile manual, to explicitly include any advice or guidance about creating child sexual abuse material. The current law, which was pioneered by the Conservative Government in 2015, rightly criminalises possession of written materials that facilitate child abuse. As depraved individuals find new ways to offend—perhaps sharing online how-to guides on generating child abuse images—we must ensure that the law clearly encompasses those too, and that is what clause 37 does.

From the Opposition’s perspective, closing this loophole is entirely sensible. It would be inconsistent for our legal system to prosecute someone for possessing instructions on how to groom a child, and yet provide no recourse against someone with detailed guidance on creating computer-generated child abuse images. The two things are equally repugnant and dangerous.

Government amendment 12 will ensure that the offence is added to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act, which will mean that the defence for slavery and trafficking victims does not apply. It is completely right that someone who possessed a guide to creating child abuse images should not be able to claim that they had it because they were being coerced. That complements the approach taken in amendment 11 to clause 36.

In 2015 the Conservative Government set the maximum sentence for the paedophile manual offence at three years. Given that we are expanding the offence, and given public abhorrence of the facilitation of child abuse, did the Government consider increasing the maximum penalty? If not, does the Minister still feel that three years remains sufficient deterrent and punishment?

Clause 37 is a targeted tightening of the law. It aligns with the previous Conservative Government-led efforts to eliminate materials to facilitate abuse. I expect that all Committee members will agree that those who seek out and hoard advice on creating indecent images of children are among the lowest of the low, and we must remove any ambiguity that they could hide behind in the face of prosecution.

[Jess Phillips]

The shadow Minister posed a question about sentencing. Clause 37 amends section 69 of the Serious Crime Act, in which, as she pointed out, the previous Government set the maximum sentence at three years and an unlimited fine. I do not want to cut across the sentencing review—the Ministry of Justice would not thank me for that—but it is really important that, as part of that review, consideration is given to how sentencing in cases of sexual violence, abuse and other areas of interest to me and everyone else in the House came about. At the moment, we are simply amending the existing law to include AI manuals in the previous Government’s measure on hard-copy manuals.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Online child sexual abuse offending is often underpinned by networking between offenders. Offenders create groups on both the clear and the dark web to facilitate their crimes against children. These groups can legitimise or escalate the abuse of children and allow offenders to commercialise child sexual abuse. Offenders within the groups assist each other in evading detection by law enforcement.

Clause 38 creates a new offence of carrying out relevant internet activity with the intention of facilitating child sexual exploitation and abuse, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Schedule 6 specifies the offences that constitute child sexual exploitation and abuse. Under clause 39, this offence will apply to activities carried out outside the UK. Under clause 40, it will also extend to corporate bodies, including the relevant persons who control them, which will ensure that offenders who commercialise child sexual abuse cannot evade liability by conducting their crimes through a company. Clause 41 ensures that any individual convicted of the offence will be subject to requirements to notify certain information to the police, to enable them to manage the risk of the sex offender reoffending.

As with earlier Government amendments, amendment 13 will add the clause 38 offence to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act—I often used to think that I could replace myself as a parent with a tape recording of me saying a wide variety of things about shoes, like, “Tidy your shoes” or “Clean them up”; maybe I could be replaced as a Minister with a tape recording of me saying, “This will amend schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act”—thereby removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence at section 45 of that Act. Amendment 18 is consequential on amendment 13.

This new offence will give law enforcement agencies the power they need to prosecute some of the most prolific and powerful offenders who facilitate child sexual abuse, with a maximum penalty that fits the severity of the crime.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 38 establishes a new offence addressing those who intentionally facilitate child sexual exploitation and abuse online. It marks an important development in the approach to child protection, targeting individuals who, while perhaps not directly abusing children themselves, none the less provide the digital infrastructure that enables others to commit such abuse. In essence, if someone runs or substantially assists an internet service with the intention of facilitating child sexual abuse, they will commit a serious crime under the clause. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the conduct.

The clause defines the offence as engaging in “a relevant internet activity” such as providing an online service, administrating or moderating a website or chat group, controlling who can access certain content, or helping users share material, with the intention of facilitating child sexual abuse or exploitation. For example, someone who runs a hidden online forum specifically for paedophiles to exchange images or grooming tips, or a web administrator who knowingly allows child abuse live streams on their platform, will be committing a distinct criminal offence.

The clause plugs a gap. While existing laws might catch some of those behaviours, a clear, dedicated offence of online facilitation will send a strong signal and make prosecution more straightforward. Regrettably, it is evident that online platforms have become primary channels through which predators identify vulnerable children and distribute unlawful material. Law enforcement often finds that behind instances of abuse there are online platforms—sometimes private networks—that give offenders the means to commit or plan their crimes. Frankly, it is not enough to punish the individual abuser; we have to go after the enablers—the people who provide the online meeting places or technical help for abusers— too. Clause 38 will drag them into the light of criminal liability. Ten years in prison and a heavy fine should make any would-be facilitator think twice about operating an abuse forum or an encrypted sharing site for paedophiles.

Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

Furthermore, these proposed amendments to the 2003 Act are a practical and necessary response to the calls and concerns of those who work on the frontline and see at first hand the devastation that such offending can cause. I therefore commend these provisions to the Committee.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 47—National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

(2) An inquiry established under subsection (1) must seek to—

(a) identify common patterns of behaviour and offending between grooming gangs;

(b) identify the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs;

(c) identify the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs;

(d) identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs;

(e) identify any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by—

(i) police,

(ii) local authorities,

(iii) prosecutors,

(iv) charities,

(v) political parties,

(vi) local and national government,

(vii) healthcare providers and health services, or

(viii) other agencies or bodies, in the committal of crimes by grooming

(f) identify such national safeguarding actions as may be required to minimise the risk of further such offending occurring in future;

(g) identify good practice in protecting children.

(3) The inquiry may do anything it considers is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions and the achievement of the requirements of subsection (2).

(4) An inquiry established under this section must publish a report within two years of the launch of the inquiry.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

‘gang’ means 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;

‘grooming’ means—

(a) activity carried out with the primary intention of committing sexual offences against the victim;

(b) activity that is carried out, or predominantly carried out, in person;

(c) activity that includes the provision of illicit substances and/or alcohol either as part of the grooming or concurrent with the commission of the sexual offence.”

This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

New clause 48—Annual statement on ethnicity of members of grooming gangs—

“The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to the House of Commons on the ethnicity of convicted members of grooming gangs.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to the House on ethnicity data of convicted members of grooming gangs.

New clause 49—Publication of sex offender’s ethnicity data—

(1) The Secretary of State for the Home Office must publish—

(a) quarterly; and

(b) yearly;

datasets containing all national data pertaining to the ethnicity of sex offenders.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘sex offender’ is anyone convicted of—

(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),

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

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

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

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

(m) 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.”

This new clause would introduce a requirement that ethnicity data of sex offenders be published on a quarterly and a yearly basis.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 43 establishes a new statutory aggravating factor in sentencing. Where an adult offender commits a specified child sexual offence and that offence involves or was facilitated by the grooming of a child, courts will be required to treat that as an aggravating factor. This provision is a powerful statement that grooming, the insidious process in which predators prepare and manipulate children for abuse, makes a crime even more heinous, and the Opposition support it. In fact, the clause is substantially the same as a provision in the Criminal Justice Bill and aligns with key recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Courts already often consider grooming as an aggravating factor, but putting it on a statutory footing ensures consistency and emphasis.

The clause sets out a list of specified child sexual offences, including the crimes of sexual assault of a child, rape and causing a child to engage in sexual activity, among others. If an offender being sentenced for one of these offences is 18 or over and the evidence shows that they groomed the child—for example, by establishing an emotional connection, buying gifts, building dependencies or systematically desensitising the child—the judge must regard that as making the crime more serious. It does not dictate the extent of the sentence, but it mandates that sentencing guidelines account for the aggravating factor.

Child grooming offenders may pose as friends, mentors or even pseudo-parental figures to their victims. By the time they commit the sexual abuse, they have already isolated the child from help and normalised horrendous behaviour. It is calculated evil on every level and deserves a heavy hammer of justice, so clause 43 ensures that judges explicitly account for that aspect when allowing justice to be served.

Clause 43 is one of several measures implementing the IICSA recommendations. Mandatory reporting, which we will come to when we debate clause 45 onwards, is another. It is heartening to see progress on these fronts. The Conservative party has remained committed to enacting all reasonable recommendations from the child abuse inquiry. We want to live up to the promise to survivors that their testimonies will spur real change. This aggravating factor is one such change, so I commend the Government for including it. We will do everything we can to support its swift passage.

Amendment 42 would create a specific aggravating factor for group-based sexual grooming. It addresses a particularly abhorrent phenomenon, which we have seen in places such as Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford, where groups of at least three adults work together to systematically groom and abuse children. Such group-based offences show a truly chilling level of organisation and premeditation.

The amendment would ensure that courts treat group-based grooming as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders who have participated in or facilitated that type of group-based sexual offending. This would send a clear message that gangs who collaborate to abuse children will face enhanced punishments, reflecting the organised nature of their crimes.

Amendment 42 defines group-based grooming as involving at least three adults whose purpose is to commit sexual offences against the same victim or group of victims under the age of 18. It would apply in three scenarios: where the offender participated in group-based grooming; where an offence was facilitated by another person’s grooming that the offender knew about; or where the offender arranged or facilitated another person’s participation in group-based grooming.

The Opposition support clause 43, as I said. We will watch to ensure that it is implemented efficiently—for instance, we will check whether sentences for grooming-related offences increase as expected. The feedback loop is crucial, because it should not be just words on paper; it must translate to tangible justice.

New clause 47 states that, within three months of the Bill’s passage, the Secretary of State must set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs to seek to identify: common patterns of behaviour between grooming gangs; the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs; the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs; the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs; and any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by a range of bodies or organisations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

I just wonder what exactly the hon. Lady is outlining. I forgot to bring the report with me—I left it on my desk downstairs. What is she seeking to add with new clause 47 that was not in Alexis Jay’s two-year report into grooming gangs? It sounds exactly the same to me, so I wonder what was missing from the report that she thinks the new clause would achieve.

[Harriet Cross]

As the Minister will realise, there is a lot in that report. The reason for putting something in a Bill is to enshrine it in law. It makes it an absolute duty on us, as elected representatives, and the Government to ensure that these things happen. It is an important provision, and I fully support the idea of making sure it is in the Bill.

New clauses 48 and 49 look at the ethnicity of grooming gang members. We cannot be squeamish or sensitive when it comes to protecting our children. Without adequate data, we cannot act with full understanding of what is happening across the country and where resources would be most effectively targeted.

[Jess Phillips]

I just want the hon. Lady to know that she is stepping on the toes of the statutory inquiry, which has already asked for better data collection on exactly these things. I am not sure why she seeks a provision that will say the same thing as the report in February 2022. Nothing was done about it then, so why does she want something else to say it again?

[Harriet Cross]

The Minister seems to be on the same ground as us. She has said many times that she agrees with the implementation of what Alexis Jay suggested, and there should therefore be no issue with it being included in the Bill—she should be welcoming this at every step. As I said, grooming is one of the most insidious and harmful forms of child exploitation. We welcome clause 43, and we hope that our amendments will be supported to ensure that this type of crime is tackled as strictly as possible.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I rise to express my strong support for clause 43, which is an essential provision that strengthens our ability to combat the abhorrent crimes of child sexual exploitation, particularly by making grooming an aggravating factor. For too long, this country has witnessed devastating failures in the protection of our most vulnerable. Clause 43 represents not just a legal tool but a moral commitment to never again allow these failures to go unanswered.

Let us remember the victims in Rotherham, where at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited over a 16-year period. Vulnerable girls were raped, trafficked, threatened and dismissed, and perhaps most disturbing was the silence of those in authority who feared speaking out. Clause 43 confronts that silence.

--- 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.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I reiterate that I am grateful for the tone that the hon. Lady adopted when she congratulated Ministers on the progress that has been made. It is just a shame that other members of her team, so to speak, did not do the same in the Chamber earlier. The Government are committed to this cause, as I would expect every Member of the House to be. Perhaps she will reflect, in discussion with her team, on what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice said about redundancies in the new clauses, and their duplicating work that has already been done or detracting from work that is under way, but I just put it on the record that I think we are all singing from the same hymn sheet on this point.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Member for that.

We will press amendment 42 to a vote. Although I heard what the Minister said on the matter, we feel that the wording of the clause is not conclusive. It refers to “offender” in the singular, not to “offenders” in the plural, and we want to make sure that anything involving a gang or group is reflected in the law.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 44 provides Border Force officers with a new power to scan electronic devices for child sexual abuse images at UK borders under specific conditions. The measure addresses the documented issue of certain offenders transporting indecent images of children on various devices when entering or leaving the country. Currently, detecting the contraband at the border is challenging without seizing devices and performing time-consuming forensic examinations. Clause 44 streamlines the process by allowing officers to act when they have reasonable grounds to suspect someone has child abuse imagery. I note that clause 45(1) references reasonable grounds. Can the Minister expound further on which instances will be classed as reasonable grounds?

I draw attention to new clause 28, which seeks to strengthen the UK’s response to foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images by mandating their deportation. Any foreign national charged with an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, which criminalises the possession, making or distribution of indecent images of children, or found carrying an electronic device containing such images would automatically be subject to deportation.

Possession of child sexual abuse images is a serious, awful and heinous crime.

[Joe Robertson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the mandatory requirement to deport foreign nationals would need to be implemented in a proper and sensitive way? Criminals leaving the country should be handed over to law enforcement in the country they go to, if appropriate, rather than just released into the world.

[Harriet Cross]

Yes, absolutely. I do not think any Member present wants to act unlawfully or be seen to do so in any way. We want to ensure that if someone is deported, it is done properly and efficiently so that the deportation works as planned.

Every image represents a real child who has been subject to abuse, and the act of possessing, viewing or sharing such material fuels a cycle of harm and victimization. This crime is not victimless. Children depicted in these images are subject to unimaginable trauma, and the continued circulation of such material prolongs their suffering and prevents them from fully recovering from their abuse, if that is at all possible.

The psychological and emotional harm caused by these crimes extends far beyond the individual victims. Families and communities are devastated when offenders are discovered, and public trust is severely damaged when such crimes occur. Law enforcement agencies worldwide are engaged in an ongoing battle against child exploitation, investing significant resources into identifying offenders, rescuing victims and preventing further harm.

Given the severity of the crime, strong legal measures are necessary to deter offenders and hold them accountable. Those found in possession of child sexual abuse images must face strict penalties. Given the severity of the crime and its devastating impact on victims, I hope the Government will support new clause 28 and share in our strong belief that foreign nationals convicted of possessing child sexual abuse images should never be allowed to remain in the UK.

[Jess Phillips]

I will first answer the hon. Lady’s question about how Border Force officers will decide what reasonable grounds of suspicion are. Officers will rely on various indicators of reasonable suspicion. Those could include whether the individual is a registered sex offender—which is quite clear—frequent travel to destinations included on the list of countries under section 172 of the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act 2022, or the presence of child abuse paraphernalia in their luggage. Unfortunately, I have seen some of the seizures in such cases, and some really horrendous stuff gets found in people’s luggage, so if someone had some of those terrible things—child-like dolls, for example—that would be reasonable suspicion.

For the purposes of this clause specifically, I give particular thanks. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention thanked Holly Lynch earlier, and I thank a former Conservative Member of Parliament. Pauline Latham was a brilliant campaigner, a brilliant woman, who I worked alongside many times on issues such as this. She tried to get this clause into a number of different private Members’ Bills and so on. She was definitely trying to help, but the previous Government, I am afraid to say, were resisting this clause, perhaps because of time—we have already had this Bill once, and I am not sure why the clause was being resisted, but that is what I found when I entered the Home Office. I am therefore proud to commend the clause to the Committee, and I thank Pauline Latham for always speaking up frankly—regardless of who she was speaking up to—about what was right.

New clause 28 seeks to extend the automatic deportation provision in section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals charged with an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, or found in possession of sexual abuse images. Where foreign nationals abuse this country’s hospitality by committing crimes, it is right that we consider taking deportation action against them. I could not disagree with the sentiment of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, although I would not put it down to just those who use child abuse imagery, rather than those who might have had contact offences with children or those who commit domestic abuse, for example. To see that in such small isolation is fairly problematic for a system that needs some serious attention.

The UK has existing powers to deport foreign nationals who commit sexual offences. Under the UK Borders Act, a foreign national must be deported if they are convicted of any offence in the UK and sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment, unless an exception applies. As someone who has worked in the field for many years, however, I recognise that some of the most heinous crimes—the ones that worry us the most and those that the Government are really keen to tackle—are those that frequently get a sentence of less than 12 months. My hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice are looking, in the sentencing review, at how and why we have a situation where some of the worst crimes against the vulnerable end up with such small sentences.

I therefore recognise the point that the hon. Lady is making. However, I would say that that is automatically the case with more than 12 months; where that threshold is not met, a foreign national can already be deported on the grounds that their deportation is conducive to the public good, under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The power to deport under the 1971 Act can also be used to deport a foreign national even where they have not been convicted of an offence.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East—is that like “Wicked”, with a Wicked Witch of the West and of the East? [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Gentleman is the Good Witch. He certainly made an important point about child abuse, especially online, which new clause 28—this comes from a very good place—seeks to determine: it is not that child abuse knows any border, but child abuse imagery especially knows no border. The idea that British children would be made safer by deporting somebody to another country is not something I would recognise. The system of then handing people over, so that actually people serve their sentences here, is probably something that we would be keen to see.

The power to deport can be used when somebody has not been convicted of an offence, so actually the powers in the new clause already exist. The Government take the matter of foreign nationals committing criminal offences in the UK extremely seriously. We deport foreign national offenders in appropriate cases, including all offenders sentenced to more than 12 months. New clause 28 is therefore unlikely to result in any more deportations, given these existing powers.

The Government do, however, recognise that the automatic deportation regime does not capture some offenders, who get shorter sentences. I recognise that and it bothers me. We intend to bring forward proposals later this year to simplify the deportation regime and address lower-level offending. I am not calling child sex abuse lower-level offending, but if we think of the most famous case of child sex abuse offending that we have had in recent years, I believe it resulted in a suspended sentence of eight weeks. While I certainly do not think it is lower-level offending, that is often is how it is treated.

At this time, we do not advocate taking a piecemeal approach to making changes in the Bill that would mandate the deportation of every foreign national charged with an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, this is absolutely something that we are keenly looking at, and I imagine that when there is future legislation, largely on immigration, we will have these debates again.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Duty to report suspected child sex offences

[Harriet Cross]

I beg to move amendment 43, clause 45, page 50, line 8, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment would keep an individual under the duty to report child abuse despite the belief that someone else may have reported the abuse to the relevant authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 46, clause 45, page 50, line 20, at end insert—

“(10) A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.

(11) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that a failure to report a suspected child sex offence should be a criminal offence.

Amendment 47, clause 45, page 51, line 5, at end insert “or

(c) an activity involving a ‘position of trust’ as defined in sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”

This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that any person working in a position of trust as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be designated a mandatory reporter.

Clause stand part.

Schedule 7.

Clause 46 stand part.

Amendment 48, clause 47, page 52, line 11, at end insert—

“(7) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed.

(8) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.

(9) A failure to comply with the duty under subsection (1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (7) or subsection (8).”

This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.

Clause 47 stand part.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 45, alongside clauses 46 and 47 and schedule 7, introduces a duty to report suspected child sex offences, and in doing so fulfils a major recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In essence, clause 45 will require professionals and volunteers working in roles closely connected to children to notify the authorities if, in the course of their work or duties, they have reason to suspect that a child has been sexually abused.

Time and again, inquiries into abuse scandals—whether involving institutions, schools, churches, sports clubs or grooming gangs—have found that people around the victim knew or suspected something was going wrong but did not report it, perhaps out of fear, confusion, misplaced loyalty or uncertainty. Clause 45 sends an unequivocal message: if you know or suspect a child is being sexually abused, you must tell the police or a local authority.

Opposition amendment 43 would remove subsection (7) of clause 45, which currently exempts someone from reporting if they believe that another person has already made the notification. Our amendment would maintain every individual’s duty to report suspected abuse, regardless of whether they think someone else has already done so. This is a sensible amendment and seeks to avoid incidences or suspected incidences of child sexual abuse slipping through the net on account of someone assuming, even in all good conscience, that someone else has already reported the matter. We cannot be careful enough, and repeated notifications of the same offence can only add to the evidence base for such a crime. Too much information is always better than no information. We cannot stand back and leave a child’s safety to chance or hope that someone else has taken the appropriate action.

The notification may be made to a relevant police force, local authority or both, as soon as is practicable. It is detailed in clause 46 that

“‘Relevant local authority’ means—

(a) if a relevant child resides in England or Wales, the local authority in whose area the child is believed to reside, or

(b) if the person making the notification does not know the local authority area in which any relevant child resides, such local authority as the person making the notification considers appropriate.”

That is a sensible approach. The first port of call is to report to the local authority that will be reasonably responsible for the vulnerable child; that is the obvious and correct place to start. However, where the notifying adult is unsure or unaware of the vulnerable child’s living arrangements, it is still vital that notification is made to a local authority, no matter where in the country the child lives, as local authorities are better placed than the notifying person to direct the report to the appropriate channels. A similar provision is outlined in clause 46 relating to the definition of a “relevant police force.” Again, we consider that to be a sensible approach.

--- Later in debate ---

I commend this clause to the Committee.

[Harriet Cross]

I do not have much to say, other than to welcome the clause. It was part of the Criminal Justice Bill, so we are very happy to see it replicated here. I appreciate what the Minister said, but we will be pressing our amendment to a vote, because no matter how many people think that an offence has or has not been reported, we can never be too careful. Over-reporting is so much better than under-reporting, so anything that ensures it gets reported at any time is vital. Otherwise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for his contribution.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Clauses 48 to 51 establish a limited number of situations in which the mandatory duty to report can be disapplied to avoid unintentional consequences for child safeguarding.

Clauses 48 and 49 set out that consensual relationships between young people should not be considered child sexual abuse in the absence of coercion or significant differences in age or maturity, and that an exception can therefore be made to the duty in such circumstances. This avoids situations such as two kissing teenagers having to be reported to the authorities by a teacher who knows them both well. That is not something I want to have to deal with—teenagers kissing in halls. I suppose it is better working here. Well done to the teachers of the world. For the record, I do not want to see anyone kissing in the corridors—teenagers or otherwise.

Nor do we want to discourage young people from accessing services that are designed to offer support in addressing their own harmful sexual behaviour. Clause 50 gives reporters some discretion in this area, by making it clear that a disclosure by a child can be dealt with outside of the mandatory duty to report.

We know that, notwithstanding the introduction of this duty, young people may need some safe spaces to explore disclosures at their own pace or with a trusted adult. Clause 51 therefore confers a regulation-making power on the Home Secretary to exempt specific services from the duty on the exceptional basis where their function relates to the safety or protection of children, and where confidentiality is considered absolutely essential. This may be required to prevent services that provide confidential support and advice to children from closing ahead of the duties’ commencement, leaving significant gaps in safeguarding provision.

[Harriet Cross]

As we have heard, clause 48 introduces a carve-out to the reporting duty. It recognises that not all sexual activity involving under-18s is a cause for alarm or state intervention. Specifically, it lets professionals refrain from reporting consensual sexual activity between older teenagers when they believe there is no abuse or exploitation at play. It is basically a Romeo and Juliet exemption.

Sexual activity for under-16s is, as we know, illegal in law but without this clause, a teacher who learns of two 15-year-olds in a consensual relationship would legally be bound to report that as a child sexual offence. The clause empowers the teacher to use their professional judgment, but the exemption applies only where the reporter is satisfied that the relationship really is consensual and not appropriate to report given the circumstances.

The bar for not reporting should be high. As a safeguard, the clause explicitly says to consider the risk of harm. If there is any indication of harm or imbalance, the duty to report remains. For example, if a 14-year-old girl is sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy, even if she says she has consented, a teacher or adult might rightly feel uneasy about the power dynamic and the possible impact of grooming. The adult might decide that it is appropriate to report in that case. On the other hand, two 14-year-olds would likely fall under the exemption.

The exemption is not about condoning under-age sex; it is about proportionality. We know that in reality about one third of teens have some form of sexual contact before the age of 16. We do not want to criminalise young people unnecessarily or deter them from seeking healthcare or advice. For example, if a 15-year-old girl is pregnant by her 16-year-old boyfriend, without this exemption a doctor might feel compelled to report the boyfriend to the police. Clause 48 means that the doctor can exercise their judgment and focus on providing healthcare instead of a police report, as long as the relationship seems consensual and caring.

That approach aligns with what many safeguarding experts recommend: to include a competent, consensual peer exemption so that mandatory reporting does not overreach. It mirrors, for instance, the approach in some Australian states where similar laws exist. Those states carve out consensual peer activity from mandatory reporting to avoid inundating child protection with consensual cases.

Clause 49 is a twin provision to clause 48, addressing the fact that young people sometimes arrange sexual encounters with each other or share things such as intimate images. By the letter of the law, those actions can be offences, but it is not the intention of the mandatory reporting regime to treat those young people as perpetrators or victims of sexual abuse if it was consensual or equal. Clause 48 says that if a child is essentially facilitating a consensual act with another child of a similar age and there is no sign of harm or coercion, a professional is not obliged to report it.

Clause 50 acknowledges that children are sometimes the ones committing sexual harm and that in certain cases, the best way to protect everyone is to allow those children to seek help rather than immediately branding them as criminals. In short, if a teenager confides that they have done something sexually wrong with another teen, a teacher or counsellor can handle that sensitively without jumping straight to calling the police—as long as everyone involved is over the age of 13 and there is no acute risk requiring immediate intervention.

The guardrails are important. The exemption kicks in only if the other child involved in the incident is 13 years old or over. If a teenager admits harming a younger child who is 12 years old or under, that is considered so serious and a younger child so vulnerable that it must be reported.

The exemption is not a green flag to do nothing, but it gives an option to not report to the police. The expectation is that professional judgment will take precedent. How does the Minister envisage that professionals will handle such disclosures in practice? Obviously, if a child confesses to something such as date rape, even if that is not reported to the police, the school or agency must ensure that the victim is safe and supported. How will those situations be monitored?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Clause 52 introduces a separate criminal offence reserved for anyone who deliberately prevents or deters an individual from carrying out the duty through, for example, destroying or concealing evidence or applying pressure on an individual to prevent them reporting. The offence is punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. That will ensure that those with the greatest responsibility for organisational failures or cover-ups face the appropriate penalty for their action.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about the lack of a criminal offence for people who fail to report. We do not think it appropriate or proportionate to create such a sanction, which may create a chilling effect where people are reluctant to volunteer with children or to enter certain professions because they fear being criminalised for making a mistake in an area that many people find very difficult to understand.

The purpose of mandatory reporting is to improve the protection of children while helping to create a culture of knowledge, confidence and openness among those most likely to be alerted to child sexual abuse. Its introduction is not intended to criminalise those working and volunteering with children, often in challenging circumstances, but we are determined for it to set high, consistent standards in identifying and responding to such abuse wherever it is found. That is why we consider it more appropriate for those who fail to discharge their duty to face referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service and the professional regulators where applicable. Those bodies can prevent individuals from working with children, so they potentially lose their livelihood, which is still a very serious consequence. That approach will reserve the greatest impact for the right cohorts of people.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 52 makes it a serious criminal offence to cover up child sexual abuse by blocking a report. If any person—be it a headteacher, coach, priest or director of a care home—tries to stop someone else reporting suspected abuse, that person can be prosecuted and potentially imprisoned for up to seven years. We know from countless inquiries in the past that often the issue was not that frontline staff did not suspect; it was that they were silenced or ignored by those higher up.

Clause 52 squarely targets that kind of misconduct. Instead of being able to threaten or cajole an employee into staying silent, now the one doing the threatening will face severe consequences. The clause is not aimed at someone who, for example, in good faith decides to wait until tomorrow, when the child is in a safer place, to file a report. There is a defence precisely for making suggestions about timing when motivated by the child’s best interests. That covers a situation where, for example, immediate reporting might tip off an abuser and endanger a child. A supervisor might decide to first secure the child before reporting. That is okay—they can argue that that is in the child’s best interests, not an attempt at covering up. But anything beyond those well-intentioned timing considerations—any attempt to outright stop a report or permanently delay it—has no defence.

Clause 52 will apply not just within organisations but potentially to abusers themselves. If an abuser tries to threaten a mandated reporter into silence, that is also preventing a report. The clause should create a cultural backstop: everyone in an organisation will know that ordering a cover-up could land them in prison. It should therefore act as a strong deterrent.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Modification of Chapter for constables

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

[Jess Phillips]

The duty to report will apply to the police in a slightly different way, as they are both a category of reporter and a potential recipient of reports under the duty. There are also scenarios in which a police officer may encounter child sexual abuse in the course of a covert investigation, or be required to review a large volume of child sexual abuse material. Clause 53 therefore provides for some modifications to the new duty to ensure operational flexibility for police officers.

Clause 54 provides the ability to future-proof the mandatory reporting duty against the emergence of new functions or settings that it may be appropriate for the Government to consider. That is essential in recognition of the unique nature of child sexual abuse as a constantly evolving threat, including through the utilisation of technology and the internet.

Finally, Government amendment 15 adds the offence of preventing a report to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence in section 45 of that Act.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 53 acknowledges that police officers operate under a different framework when it comes to responding to crimes. Quite sensibly, it modifies the mandatory reporting duty to fit their role. After all, we would not expect a police officer to file a report with themselves. If an officer learns of abuse, they are already empowered, and indeed obliged by their oath, to take investigative action directly.

The Bill here is technical, but the result is likely that a constable who has reason to suspect child abuse is considered to have complied with the duty so long as they handle it through the proper police channels, for example by recording it on their system, notifying their child protection unit or initiating an investigation. They would not have to make a separate notification to, for example, the local authority, as a teacher or doctor would. The police already have established protocols for involving social services in joint investigations.

Clause 54 is essentially a future-proofing and housekeeping part of the chapter. It gives the Secretary of State the ability, with Parliament’s approval, to amend the reporting regime as necessary. It also ties up loose ends by integrating new offences into related legislation. The regulation-making power means that if a list of relevant activities needs to be expanded, that can be done relatively easily. Of course, it is important that any changes undergo parliamentary scrutiny. Although we want flexibility, we must also ensure democratic oversight, given the sensitivity of the obligations. I note amendment 15, as I have the other Government amendments.

[Jess Phillips]

I am going to miss making amendments to put things in the schedule to the Modern Slavery Act when this is all done. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Powers to amend this Chapter, and consequential amendment

Amendment made: 15, in clause 54, page 55, line 31, at end insert—

“(3) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 36D (offences under the Crime and Policing Act 2025) (inserted by section 17), after the entry for section 38 (inserted by section 38), insert—

‘section 52 (preventing or deterring a person from complying with duty to report suspected child sex offence)’.”—(Jess Phillips.)

This amendment excepts the offence of preventing or deterring a person from complying with the duty to report a suspected child sex offence from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Guidance about disclosure of information by police for purpose of preventing sex offending

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

[Jess Phillips]

Clause 55 creates a power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to the police regarding their disclosure of information to prevent sexual offending.

Currently, the child sex offender disclosure scheme, also known as Sarah’s law, is the only guidance for the disclosure of information to prevent sexual harm. The clause will place the scheme on a statutory footing, bringing it in line with the domestic violence disclosure scheme. In so doing, it will help ensure greater consistency in the operation of the scheme across police forces. The Secretary of State will be able to use the power in clause 55 to issue further statutory guidance regarding the police’s disclosure of information to prevent sexual harm to other kinds of victim or in other circumstances.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 55 includes guidance for disclosure of information to the police for the purpose of preventing sexual offending. It is vital that the police are able to obtain all information as quickly as possible to ensure that offences are prevented. Prevention is always better than cure, and that goes as much for sexual offences as it does for any other offence. We welcome this provision, in order to ensure that sexual offences can be prevented and to give police the necessary powers.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 14 provides for a new criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker. This will send a clear message to retailers and perpetrators alike that we take any form of violence in a retail setting extremely seriously, and it fulfils our manifesto commitment.

I know that all Members will have experiences and information from their constituencies on the unacceptable rise in assaults on retail workers. I visited a shopkeeper on Beverley Road in my constituency who had been assaulted by a customer who was buying some alcohol and disputed its price. The customer hit the shopkeeper around the head around 50 times in an unprovoked assault, which was recorded on CCTV, so I was able to see it. It was really shocking to see. Many shop workers go to work every day with the fear of that happening. I pay tribute to Navin Sharda, that shopkeeper who was so badly assaulted.

Police recorded crime figures show that shoplifting offences increased by 23% in the 12 months to September 2024, and the British Retail Consortium’s 2025 crime report showed that there were around 737,000 incidents of violence and abuse—about 2,000 a day—in 2023-24. Figures published by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers in March 2025 show that 77% of workers said that they had been verbally abused in the 12 months to December 2024, 53% had received threats of violence, and 10% were physically assaulted during the year. Those statistics demonstrate that there are unacceptably high levels of retail crime across the country, and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shop workers to commit those crimes.

As well as carrying out their role of selling goods, retail workers are in some cases asked by us to restrict the sale of dozens of age-restricted items. That is an act of public service. In carrying it out, they are putting themselves at risk, as a declined sale may, sadly, cause someone to become violent and abusive.

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

It is obviously the case that retail workers have to stop the sale of certain products at times, whether it is because the customer is under age or for other reasons. Of course, delivery drivers have to do exactly the same thing if they get to a house and, for example, an under-18-year-old would be in receipt of alcohol or a knife, even if it is for legitimate purposes. Does the Minister therefore agree that delivery drivers face the same risks as retail workers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

What we do know, from the statistics that I have just read out, is that there is a wide body of evidence to confirm what is happening to retail workers on retail premises. We know that, because that information and evidence has been collated for some time. I accept that there are questions and concerns about delivery drivers, but I do not think we are in the position to know the extent of assaults on delivery drivers. I am not disputing that they take place—they do—but we have been very clear, and it was our manifesto commitment, that we will deal with assaults on retail workers by legislating for that. The clause is about that.

Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. The new offence, which is for retail workers and premises, sends a strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated. In a later debate, perhaps, I will come on to some of the other protections that all workers have, and how they can be used. This new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine.

Reflecting on the need to take a tough stance with meaningful criminal justice consequences, clause 15 provides that the new offence will come with a presumption for a court to make a criminal behaviour order. Such an order may prohibit the offender doing anything described in it, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises. Breach of a criminal behaviour order is in itself a criminal offence, attracting a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Clauses 14 and 15, taken together, will significantly help better protect retail workers. On that basis, I am sure that they will be welcomed across the Committee. The hon. Member for Stockton West, who leads for the Opposition, has tabled amendment 29 and new clause 26 in this group. I plan to respond to those when winding up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

The then Government also ramped up the use of facial recognition technology to help catch perpetrators and prevent shoplifting and abuse in the first place, which was to be backed by a £55.5 million investment over four years. The police then could have rolled out this new, state-of-the-art technology further. The investment included £4 million for bespoke public mobile units that can be deployed to high streets across the country, with live facial recognition that can be used in crowded areas to identify people wanted by the police, including repeat shoplifters and those who would do our retail workers harm. The mobile units can take live footage of crowds in towns and on high streets and compare the images to those of specific people wanted by the police or banned from the location. Police in the area can then be alerted so that they can track down offenders.

[Harriet Cross]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that sort of approach is important in tackling repeat offenders with whom retail workers will be very familiar? They know who the offenders are in their area, because they see them every day. That sort of approach would help tackle those offenders and give reassurance to retail workers that they will not see these people back time and again.

[Matt Vickers]

The use of facial recognition in this setting is incredible. Anybody who has been out with the police force in their area and looked at it will know that the benefits are huge. It delivers great efficiency to the police, who can check thousands of people in minutes. The ability to take a face and work out who the person is and what they have done or have not done is game-changing in this and many other settings.

Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. In the majority of these cases, I would hazard a guess that offenders are likely to receive sentences that could have been delivered more swiftly and cost-effectively by magistrates. I am not suggesting that the proposed law will directly hinder the police in their work, or directly lead to worse outcomes; however, I can see no likely benefit to come from additional costs and additional delays being introduced to the system.

Shoplifting cases below £200 can be—and are—dealt with effectively by the police. If that is not case in some areas, it should be a matter for operational improvement, not new legislation. Does the Minister know a single police force in the country that has a policy of not pursuing shoplifters for products under £200 in value? Also, do the Government believe that trying crimes under £200 as summary offences, or in the magistrates court, meant that they were effectively decriminalised? If so, why is the offence of assaulting a retail worker a summary-only offence?

I am sure we can play the politics of the backlog in the Crown court and have a long discussion about the cause and effect. I know that Government Members appreciated my brevity this morning, so I am keen to focus on the important measures in the Bill. The backlogs are real, and making them worse will have real consequences. At the end of September 2024, the backlog stood at an unprecedented high of 73,105 open cases. The Public Accounts Committee report examined that issue, with the Ministry of Justice acknowledging that

“unless action is taken, the backlog will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, even with the courts system working at maximum capacity.”

During oral evidence, there were significant discussions about the impact of clause 16, particularly on the Crown court. Oliver Sells spoke about the clause during the evidence session and he stated:

“I recognise that there is a great public anxiety about this particular issue. Shoplifting has become endemic and almost non-criminal at the same time. It is a curious dichotomy, it seems to me, but I do not think for a moment—I am sorry to be critical—that making theft from a shop, irrespective of value, triable either way is the right answer. What that will do, inevitably, is push some of these cases up into the Crown court from the magistrates court.

I understand the reasons behind it and the concerns of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the like. However, I think it is the wrong way. One of the things we must do now in this country is reinforce the use and the range of magistrates courts, and bring them back to deal with serious low-level crimes that are very frequent in their areas. They know how to deal with them. They need the powers to deal with them. I still do not think their range of powers is strong enough. You need to take cases such as these out of the Crown court, in my judgment. I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 17, Q25.]

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

At the evidence session last Thursday, the witnesses that we spoke to about this issue said that the magistrates court was the most appropriate place for these cases to be heard. Given they are the people who know the system best, we should certainly take that evidence onboard.

[Matt Vickers]

I think the measure probably comes from a very good place, if the Government really believe that police forces are not taking the action that they should on the theft of goods whose value is under £200, which people have described as being decriminalised. I do not think there is any evidence for that actually being the case, because 90% of such charges relate to goods under the value of £200. All police forces in the country, as far as I understand, have a policy of still going after people, even if the value of the goods is under £200. I do not know that this clause will solve the problem, but it could well create a problem in pushing so much to the Crown court.

--- Later in debate ---

(ab) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both.”—(Jo Platt.)

[Harriet Cross]

Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), seeks to increase the increase the penalty on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. That would bring the punishment for child criminal exploitation in line with the maximum sentences for crimes such as murder, hostage taking, armed robbery, or possession of a class A drug with intent to supply. Life imprisonment is typically reserved for the most serious crimes, where society wishes to ensure public safety, deliver justice for victims and sufficiently punish perpetrators. Amendment 1 seems a reasonable amendment considering the devastating impact that CCE has on individual children, communities and crime levels across the UK.

Child criminal exploitation is a coward’s crime committed by those willing to engage in criminal activities such as drug and weapon dealing yet unprepared to get their own hands dirty. They instead prefer to put children, often very vulnerable and impressionable ones, in harm’s way, exposing them to crime and in many cases sentencing them to a life of crime. The impact on these children is multifaceted, up to and including their own death. Of course, consideration is needed of the impact of life imprisonment on prison places and resources, but it is vital where there is a need to, first, properly punish and, secondly, deter perpetrators of child criminal exploitation with a sentence commensurate to the scale of the crime.

[Matt Vickers]

This amendment would significantly increase the maximum penalty for offences outlined in clause 17 by removing the existing penalties in subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) and replacing them with stricter sentencing provisions. The amendment would introduce life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for those convicted on indictment in the Crown court, while maintaining the ability of the magistrates court to impose a sentence up to the general limit, a fine, or both for summary convictions.

The effect of the amendment would be to significantly strengthen the legal consequences for those found guilty of child criminal exploitation, the worst of the worst offences. By allowing for life imprisonment, the amendment underscores the grave nature of these offences, bringing them in line with other serious criminal acts that warrant the highest level of sentencing. Punitive measures play a crucial role in both deterring criminal behaviour and ensuring the protection of society, particularly when dealing with serious offences, such as child criminal exploitation. Strong sentencing frameworks serve as a clear warning that such crimes will not be tolerated, dissuading potential offenders from engaging in illegal activities due to the fear of severe consequences. By imposing harsh penalties, including lengthy prison sentences, the justice system sends an unambiguous message: those who exploit, coerce or harm others, especially vulnerable individuals such as children, will face the full force of the law.

The amendment would act as a preventive mechanism, discouraging not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activity but those who may be considering engaging in similar offences. Punitive measures are essential for protecting victims and the wider public. By ensuring that offenders face substantial consequences, the justice system helps to incapacitate dangerous individuals, preventing them from reoffending and reducing the risk to others. That is particularly important in cases where offenders pose a long-term threat, such as organised criminal networks involved in child exploitation.

Furthermore, the retention of the magistrates court’s ability to impose a lesser penalty ensures there is proportionality in sentencing, allowing for differentiation between varying levels of criminal involvement. This approach ensures that although the most serious offenders may face life imprisonment, lesser offenders are still subject to significant penalties without overburdening the Crown court system. Ultimately, the amendment seeks to deliver a strong message of deterrence, making it clear that child criminal exploitation will not be tolerated and that those who commit such offences will face the harshest legal consequences available under UK law.

--- Later in debate ---

I reassure the Committee and other Members indirectly that the Government fully support the intention behind new clause 8, and are committed to taking steps to ensure that victims of child exploitation are identified and receive the support they need. However, we simply do not consider that a statutory definition is the best way to achieve that aim.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 17 creates a new stand-alone offence to prosecute adults committing child criminal exploitation, to prevent exploitative conduct committed by adults against children from occurring or re-occurring. Child criminal exploitation is a heinous crime targeting young, vulnerable and impressionable children in a range of ways, which too often leads to the child being criminalised, endangered, injured or even killed.

The 2018 serious violence strategy defined child criminal exploitation as occurring where

“an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18… The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual. Child Criminal Exploitation does not always involve physical contact; it can also occur through the use of technology.”

As per that definition, the criminal exploitation of children often sees them coerced, compelled, groomed or forced to take part in the supply of drugs and transportation of the associated money and weapons for the perpetrator. In England, the latest children in need census data for assessments in the year ending 31 March 2024 recorded 15,750 episodes in which child criminal exploitation was identified as a concern. There were 10,180 episodes in which children being part of a street or organised crime gang was identified as being a concern.

Perhaps the example of child criminal exploitation that is referred to most frequently involves county line gangs. County lines is a risky, violent and exploitative form of contraband distribution, largely and mainly of drugs. County lines commonly uses children, young people or even vulnerable adults, who are perceived as being either indebted to or misled by those running the operation. They are instructed to deliver and/or store drugs, weapons, and money for dealers or users locally, across established county lines, or on to anywhere that can be considered as “not their turf”.

Police data published by the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre in its county lines strategic threat risk assessment showed that 22%—more than one in five—of individuals involved in county lines in 2023-24 were children, which is equivalent to 2,888 children. The risk assessment also found that most children involved in county lines are aged 15 to 17, and that they are mainly recorded as undertaking the most dangerous runner or workforce roles in the drugs supply chain and linked to exploitation. However, such exploitation can be difficult to identify, so we welcome any move to crack down on child criminal exploitation, shine a light on this crime, and better equip those working on the frontline to identify, tackle and prevent more children from being exploited for criminal intent.

Clause 17 makes it an offence for anyone over the age of 18 to engage

“in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of causing the child to engage in criminal conduct”,

or where the child is under 13 or where the perpetrator

“does not reasonably believe that the child is aged 18 or over.”

A person who commits an offence will be tried with child criminal exploitation being an either-way offence and will be liable for an imprisonment or a fine, or both.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the suitability of using the age of 13 and under. Why was that age chosen, rather than an older age—say, 15 or 16? What discussions has she had with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly in the light of the fact that CCE—especially county lines—does not recognise or care about internal land or maritime borders?

--- Later in debate ---

This is a comprehensive set of provisions to prevent the criminal exploitation of children and ultimately help to safeguard those at risk. I commend them to the Committee.

[Harriet Cross]

Clause 18 creates a new regime for child criminal exploitation prevention orders. A CCEPO is a new civil order that enables prohibitions or requirements to be imposed by courts on individuals involved in CCE to protect children from harm from criminal exploitation by preventing future offending.

A CCEPO will be obtained via a number of routes, including an order from a magistrates court following an application by a chief officer of the police—including the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police—or the director general of the NCA. An order may also be made by a court—for example, a magistrates court, the Crown court or, in limited cases, the Court of Appeal—on its own volition at the end of criminal proceedings in situations where the defendant has been acquitted of the offence, the court has made a finding that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity, or the defendant is under a disability such that they are unfit to be tried but has done the act charged.

CCEPOs will be reserved for defendants aged 18 and over where the court is satisfied that they have engaged in CCE. According to subsection (5), for a court to hand down a CCEPO, it must also consider that there is a risk that the defendant will seek to cause children, or any particular children, to engage in criminal conduct. Will the Minister confirm whether a defendant can therefore be given a CCEPO only if it is considered that they will repeat offend—that is, re-engage in CCE—or can a CCEPO be handed down regardless of the potential for or expectation of future offending? Is having previously engaged in CCE enough of an indicator to suggest a risk of future offending?

Clause 19 details what a CCEPO is and what it does and does not do. The nature of any condition imposed is a matter for the court to determine. These conditions could include limiting a defendant’s ability to work with children, contact specific people online or in person, or go to a certain area, as well as requiring them to attend a drug awareness class. The conditions may also require the defendant to comply with a notification order, as detailed in clause 24, which I will address later.

We must be clear that no one can accidentally engage in child criminal exploitation. Those receiving a CCEPO will have knowingly endangered, threatened, misled and vilified children in pursuit of their own criminality, and there will be a risk to the public that they will do so again. These people are ruthless and the full force of the law is needed to prevent future offending.

Subsection (4) states:

“A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom”.

I welcome that, but can the Minister detail how this will be enforced across the devolved nations? If extra resource is required, will it be made available to the devolved nations? What conversations has she had with our devolved Parliaments, Assemblies and police forces about this?

Subsection (7) provides that where a person is made subject to a new CCEPO, any existing CCEPO will cease to exist. We strongly believe that anyone being handed multiple concurrent or successive CCEPOs must be subject to stronger conditions and punishments—otherwise, what is to deter them from reoffending? Will the severity of successive CCEPOs be at the discretion of the court? How does the initial CCEPO lapsing on receipt of the second deliver justice for victims of the initial offence for which a CCEPO was handed down? What is the punishment for breaking the terms of a CCEPO, and how will it be enforced? How long can CCEPOs be handed down for? The Bill prescribes a minimum of two years. What is the escalation should a single defendant receive repeated CCEPOs?

Clause 20 sets out the practical mechanisms for obtaining these new prevention orders. It sensibly restricts the power to apply for a CCEPO to our law enforcement bodies—chiefly, the police and the National Crime Agency. That is appropriate, because decisions to seek an order will rely on police intelligence about who is grooming children into crime, and we would not want just anyone to be able to drag individuals to court without solid evidence. Placing this responsibility with senior officers looks as though it will ensure that applications are vetted by those with the expertise to judge the risk someone poses.

I note that the clause specifically includes British Transport police and MOD police alongside regional forces. That is welcome; exploitation is not confined by geography—for example, gangs use railways to move children along county lines. The British Transport police must be empowered to act if it identifies a predator using the train network to recruit or deploy children. Likewise, the National Crime Agency might come across sophisticated networks exploiting children across multiple force areas. Clause 20 lets those forces and the NCA go to court directly. Crucially, if they do so, they must inform the local police force for the area where the suspect lives, so that there is no gap in knowledge. That co-ordination will be vital, as local officers will likely be the ones monitoring the order on a day-to-day basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her quick canter through the clauses, particularly the provisions on interim orders and without-notice orders. I worry that once someone has an interim order, given some of the court backlogs, it may take some time for them to come back to the court for a full order. Does she share that concern?

[Harriet Cross]

Of course. In all cases, it is a balance between getting an interim order in place to protect children in the immediate term, and ensuring that we get true justice through the system. It is something that we need more information on, but we also need a balance, and, on balance, the interim orders seem reasonable.

Another point is the serving of the interim order. If the person was not in court when the order was made—for example, if it was made after a without-notice application—it will kick in only once it is served. That is understandable; we cannot expect someone to comply with an order that they do not know about. However, I wonder whether there are provisions to use all reasonable means to serve it quickly, potentially with police involvement to hand it to the person if needed, since a child’s safety could hinge on getting a bit of paper into the right hands.

Interim orders seem to be a sensible procedural tool. They align with how other orders, such as interim injunctions, work, and they will ensure continuity of protection. However, I reiterate that interim measures should not become semi-permanent due to procedural or court delays. The ultimate goal is to get to a full hearing and a long-term solution. Interim orders are the bridge to that, but they need to be a short, sturdy bridge, not a lingering limbo.

Can the Minister address what guidance or expectations will be set to ensure that, where an interim CCEPO is issued, the full hearing occurs as soon as possible? Is there an envisaged maximum duration for an interim order before it is reviewed? Clause 22(3) limits interim orders to prohibitions and the notification requirement. Can the Minister clarify why? Is it primarily because positive requirements, such as attending a course, might be burdensome to enforce in the short term? The explanatory notes mention that an interim order can be varied or discharged, just like a full order. Can the Minister confirm that if circumstances change—for example, if new evidence shows the risk is either higher or lower—the police or subject can apply to adjust the interim order even before the final hearing? Lastly, if an interim order is made in the absence of the defendant, what steps will be taken to ensure that it is served promptly?

Clause 23 empowers courts to consider making a CCEPO at the conclusion of certain criminal proceedings, even if the police have not applied for one. Effectively, it provides for judicial initiative, allowing courts to consider a CCEPO even without a formal application. This is quite a significant provision. It means that, if someone is prosecuted for drug trafficking involving children, for example, and they escape conviction—perhaps the jury was not 100% satisfied or there was a technicality—the court does not have to throw its hands up on the case. It can say that it has heard enough to worry that the person might exploit children, so it will consider a prevention order.

Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Opposition amendment 31 would lower to 16 the age at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in antisocial behaviour.

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

Last Thursday, in the evidence session, we heard that a large number of under-18s engage in antisocial behaviour. Does the shadow Minister agree with me and some of the witnesses we heard from that, without the age being reduced to 16, the measure will have less impact, given where a lot of the antisocial behaviour in our communities is coming from?

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. When you speak to some of the people who are at the sharp end of this antisocial behaviour, many of them will tell you that it is inflicted by those under 18. We heard witnesses’ concerns about where the line should be drawn. Obviously, there is a balance with respect to criminalising young people, but there is a point at which there have to be real consequences, and communities need to know that there are consequences, for those youngsters who engage in this behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Amendment 33 would make a person who has been given more than one respect order liable for a fine of up to £1,000. It is unlikely that a person would be given more than one respect order. An order may be given for a specified period of time or may state that it has effect until further notice. In practice, if changes are needed to a respect order after it has been approved, the applicant would return to court for the order to be varied if, for example, it was considered necessary to include additional requirements or prohibitions, or to extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect. However, a person may be given a separate order where they have engaged in antisocial behaviour that meets the legal test for use of another ASB power—for example, a housing injunction or a criminal behaviour order. Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.

[Harriet Cross]

Respect orders are indeed meant to be preventive, and everyone on the Committee wants them to work, but part of prevention is deterrence. Knowing that it will hit them in their pocket if they get a respect order is a huge deterrent for people who otherwise, as the shadow Minister said, wear these things as a badge of honour. It is not that people will receive multiple respect orders at the same time; they may receive them sequentially. They may have had one in the past, but it has lapsed or they have served it—whatever word is used—and then, down the line, they get another one and then another. A fine would ensure that respect orders have a direct financial impact on them, to prevent them from getting into a cycle of receiving one after another.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh pointed out, respect orders deter people from carrying on with their behaviour because a breach can lead to arrest, being brought before a criminal court and, potentially, imprisonment. My expectation is that, if there is a need to make changes to a respect order, the requirements will be changed and the prohibitions will be extended on the respect order that has already been issued, so I am not sure that I take the point about multiple respect orders. What we all want is that, when a respect order is issued, the individual will comply with it and no further steps are necessary by anybody because they will have stopped the antisocial behaviour and dealt with their underlying problems. Simply fining someone for receiving further orders would be a punitive measure and unlikely to help that individual change their behaviour.

Amendment 32 would increase the maximum prison term available for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years. Currently, the maximum sentence for breaching a respect order is up to two years’ imprisonment upon conviction in the Crown court. We believe that is the appropriate level of sanction, and it is in line with the current civil injunction that it replaces.

As I said, respect orders take a fundamentally preventive approach, and it is appropriate that the sentence reflects that. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. However, it is right that custodial sentences are still available for those who continue to cause havoc to our communities. Other powers, such as criminal behaviour orders, are available on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court, and they carry a longer sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. In the light of that, I hope that the shadow Minister will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I am sure they will be in touch and can ask them that question, but I think empowering these organisations in this way is really powerful and will really help them to deal with some of the horrific antisocial behaviour their tenants are subjected to.

[Harriet Cross]

On this amendment and amendment 31, on reducing the age threshold to 16, we heard from the experts and people who gave evidence that we should reduce it to 16 because that is where most of the criminality of the antisocial behaviour comes from. By that same argument, because we are not hearing from housing authorities or experts does not necessarily mean that this is not a good amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

For clarity, will the threshold at which a youth injunction is given be at the same sort of level as for a respect order, but with the age element added in, or will there be a different threshold for the level of antisocial behaviour, or the sort of disruption caused?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We are retaining the existing provisions for civil injunctions. As I set out previously, the balance of probabilities, the test and the categorisation of the antisocial behaviour will all remain the same. We are just renaming it a “youth injunction” because we are focusing the respect order on the persistent antisocial behaviour of adults over 18. The youth injunction remains exactly as it is in law now.

I am conscious of the profound problems that housing-related nuisance ASB can cause, as we have heard again in this debate. The housing injunction therefore retains the lower legal threshold of

“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”

in a housing context—as previously discussed. Again, we heard from practitioners that the existing power is effective and proportionate for housing-related ASB, and the housing injunction therefore retains the effect of the current power in that context.

Government amendments 6 to 8 and 24 to 28 make further technical and consequential amendments to existing antisocial behaviour legislation as a result of the introduction of respect orders. In relation to the 2014 Act, that means ensuring that definitions of antisocial behaviour are captured accurately elsewhere, under the existing powers, to account for the new respect orders and injunctions in part 1 of the Act. Consequential amendments are also needed to the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 so that the breach of a respect order, a youth injunction or a housing injunction continues to be a ground for possession under those Housing Acts, as is the case with the current civil injunction.

We know that taking possession of a property is an important tool for landlords to use to provide swift relief to victims when antisocial behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. It is therefore right to retain that tool with the new respect order. In addition, amendment 28 amends the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that landlords can refuse to surrender and grant tenancies on the basis that a tenant, or a person residing with the tenant, has been issued with a respect order.

Finally, amendment 28 also amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that constables in uniform can continue to require a person engaging in antisocial behaviour to give their name and address. I commend the provisions to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 3 provides for extensions to the maximum timeframes for dispersal directions and closure orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I will address each of these in turn.

The clause extends the maximum period for which a dispersal order can be in place from 48 to 72 hours and introduces a mandatory review at 48 hours. We know that the dispersal power is an effective tool that police can use in a range of situations to move on individuals who are committing, or who are likely to commit, antisocial behaviour. Despite that, feedback from police and from police and crime commissioners has highlighted operational challenges in implementing this power.

Under current legislation, the police can issue a dispersal order to require a person to leave an area for a maximum of only 48 hours. That makes no allowance or and allows no extensions for weekends or bank holidays, when incidents of antisocial behaviour are often high. The 48-hour window also allows little time for relevant authorities to identify the root causes of the issue in order to implement longer-term solutions. Extending the timeframe of the dispersal power to up to 72 hours will ensure that police can effectively cover these problem periods, such as bank holidays. It will also give local agencies more time to come together to develop long-term solutions to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Harriet Cross]

Although I completely agree with the need to extend the power, why was 72 hours chosen? Was there work or analysis behind that figure?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.

Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.

Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I rise to speak to clause 8 as well as new clauses 30 and 36, 37, 39 and 40, which were tabled by the Opposition. Clause 8 relates to the seizure of motor vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. It will omit section 59(4) and (5) of the Police Reform Act 2002, removing the requirement to first issue a warning prior to seizing a vehicle being used in an antisocial manner.

This issue is of particular concern to me, and many hon. Members across the House. The Opposition welcome this measure to enable police to remove bikes without warning when using this power. Off-road bikes, e-bikes and other non-road-legal bikes are a huge concern to local communities across the country. The issue has been raised time and again in this place, with increasing regularity, in Westminster Hall debates, parliamentary questions, and private Member’s Bills, which have shown the huge and increasing impact it has on communities in different parts of the country, represented by MPs of different political parties.

The antisocial use of motor vehicles is a growing concern across the UK. When vehicles are driven recklessly, dangerously or in a disruptive manner, they can cause significant harm—both physical and psychological—to individuals and the wider community. The consequences of such behaviour range from increased public fear and distress to serious injury, and even loss of life.

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

This is about the impact on not just communities and individuals but on farmers, livestock and rural businesses. In many cases people are seeing their livelihoods disrupted and their livestock injured or, at worst, killed by these bikes. What are the shadow Minister’s views on the need to tackle that?

[Matt Vickers]

This huge problem has many different faces in many different communities. Sometimes the problem is antisocial behaviour, and sometimes it is outright crime. We should be doing more, in terms of sanctions, to get these bikes off the streets.

One of the most immediate and severe dangers posed by antisocial use of motor vehicles is the threat to public safety. Reckless driving, illegal street racing and the misuse of off-road vehicles in pedestrian areas create an environment where accidents are not just possible but inevitable. Instances of vehicles being driven at high speed through residential streets or public spaces increase the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. Children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to such risks. Parents often express concerns about their children’s safety when motorbikes or modified cars are recklessly raced through parks and playgrounds: areas that should be havens for relaxation and recreation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In my constituency, the problem has spread. It started on estates; people may make assumptions about where it might have started. But it is now everywhere. Areas filled with old people, and normal, quiet and well-heeled streets are now being tortured by it. It is also enabling crime on a massive scale, including drugs, child exploitation, theft and offences against the person.

Balaclavas and the speed of the vehicles are being used to evade detection and capture, and the teenagers are sometimes actively goading law enforcement. We have heard some of the public debate about direct contact to take people off the bikes, and we have also seen the tragic consequences when young people lose their lives as a result. While I welcome the change, I feel that we need to go much further in order to grip the problem. We cannot wait for another person to lose their life, or indeed for yet more people in communities across the country to lose their quality of life.

The problem is continuing to grow month on month. If anyone thinks I am being over the top, they can think again, or they could speak to a couple of MPs whose constituencies are affected. The problem is growing on a huge scale. Over recent years and, particularly, recent months, it has increasingly spread across my constituency. The police have been innovative in their efforts to tackle the issue of off-road bikes. Some forces have deployed officers on off-road bikes; others have used drones and other technology to trace where bikes are being held. All forces use an intelligence-led response and the powers they have to safely seize bikes when they are not being ridden.

I have spoken to many police officers, in my locality and across the country, about the issue. All are frustrated by the challenges of trying to deal with the problem. One such officer is neighbourhood police sergeant Gary Cookland, from my local police force in Cleveland, who submitted written evidence to the Committee. Gary is an incredibly hard-working police officer, who spends a large amount of time dealing with antisocial behaviour and, in particular, off-road bikes.

Gary explains that tackling the bikes is a high priority for all the communities he serves. He describes the bikes’ role in criminal activities and the misery they cause for so many families. He says that many of the vehicles are not roadworthy and not registered vehicles. The vehicles are sold without any restrictions and are readily available to any person who wishes to purchase one; they do not even need a driving licence. That has caused an influx of dangerous imports, a high number of which are afflicting our streets. He urges the Government to amend the Bill to include some form of regulation, and to include the need to supply the name of the owner, as well as an address and driving licence, at the point of sale.

Gary explains the ridiculous situation in which some of the bikes seized by police are then resold by them and returned to the streets. He talks about the fact that in some cases, when vehicles are deemed roadworthy, they can be reclaimed by people without relevant documentation such as an accurate or up-to-date registration. He points out that section 59 recoveries do not currently need all of those documents to be in order—only proof of ownership and payment of recovery fees. Sergeant Cookland puts forward a number of suggestions to help tackle the issue, including restrictions on fuel stations selling to vehicles that are clearly illegal and driven by people without helmets or driving licences. He also talks about restricting the use of balaclavas, which is now at epidemic levels in many communities and cause huge fear among law-abiding citizens.

Gary very much welcomes the change being put forward by the Government, as do I, but we need to think about the scale of the impact it can have. The clause changes just one piece of legislation used to seize the vehicles, but in practice the police use different powers within existing legislation. In this case, we are amending section 59 of the Police Reform Act, but many seizures are made under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988—the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 revision, which I believe does not require notice or warning as it stands. It allows for the seizure of vehicles with no insurance. Obviously, many of the offending vehicles are not road legal anyway, so by default, they cannot be insured for use in public spaces. As I understand it, there are no records of what powers police forces are using to seize bikes, and to what scale. Therefore, it is difficult to determine with any confidence the scale of any impact the measure in the Bill will have. I am keen to hear from the Minister the size or scale of the impact that she anticipates it might have.

While it is a positive move, the provision is unlikely to have a sizeable impact on the problem. Therefore, informed by conversations with many on the frontline, I have tabled a number of new clauses on the subject in the hope that the Government might consider going further. I was certainly not afraid to question Ministers on this subject when my party was in office. I hope that my new clauses might be accepted as constructive suggestions to help solve what is a huge problem in so many areas across the country.

New clause 36 would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is being driven without a licence, uninsured or being used illegally. Bizarrely, police officers are not able to seize these bikes under either the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Police Reform Act 2002. A person can terrorise people, cause untold misery to local communities and use such a vehicle to evade law enforcement, but law enforcement cannot come into that person’s house and seize their off-road bike using existing powers. I hope people will see this as a logical measure; in fact, it was previously put forward by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a Labour Member.

New clause 37 would amend section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance. This is a simple change suggested by the neighbourhood police sergeant that could make a real and meaningful difference, helping those on the frontline to seize bikes with less restriction.

[Harriet Cross]

Earlier, we considered extending timelines from 48 hours to 72 hours to take in, for example, weekends and bank holidays. The new clause fits quite nicely with that, and would make sure that wherever we are in the week or year we are tackling this issue effectively.

[Matt Vickers]

Very much so. We can end up in a perverse situation where someone who has been seen riding one of these bikes just hides it for 24 hours, knowing that the police will have a scrap to go and recover it on that basis. At the time the provision was written, I do not think it would have been foreseen that this was where things would end. We did not write the Road Traffic Act with a view that we would need to seize bikes within 24 hours. It just was not a thing at the time. When that legislation was put forward, the problems with off-road bikes would never have even been considered. The new clause would bring the measure up to date and make it relevant to the challenges faced by modern policing. It would also prevent those who know the law from hiding a vehicle away for a period before returning to their illegal activity.

New clause 39 would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002 to create a duty to destroy seized off-road bikes. As frontline police officers have said, all too often they go to great lengths to seize these bikes, only to then see police forces sell them back on to the streets, often landing straight back into the hands of those from whom they were removed. Police forces use this as a form of revenue, but it is hugely damaging for the morale of many officers and hugely counterproductive in tackling the problem.

New clause 40 would invite the Secretary of State to issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes. It would consider the merits of requiring those selling off-road bikes to record the details of those buying them and verify that they have any relevant insurance. Schemes exist for the registration of farm plant equipment. Crikey, we even have to register the likes of Microsoft Windows and various apps. Why should we not look at the merits of registering the sale of these dangerous bikes, which, when misused, are now enabling crime and causing misery in our communities?

New clause 30 would amend the Police Reform Act and make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence. This is not only a matter of enforcement; it is a matter of public safety, community wellbeing and ensuring that those who repeatedly flout the law face appropriate consequences. For too long, communities across the country have suffered from the reckless and inconsiderate use of motor vehicles. Whether it is illegal street racing, off-road bikes terrorising neighbourhoods or aggressive driving that endangers pedestrians and cyclists, the misuse of vehicles is a persistent issue that affects both urban and rural areas. The current legal framework allows for vehicle seizure, but does not go far enough in deterring repeat offenders. By introducing driving licence penalties, we send a clear message that persistent antisocial behaviour involving motor vehicles will have lasting consequences.

This new clause will support our police forces, who often already struggle to tackle the volume of complaints regarding reckless vehicle use. It presents an additional tool to discourage repeat offenders without having to repeatedly seize vehicles, which is often a short-term fix. I think most Members in the room would agree with that a driver facing potential disqualification is less likely to engage in dangerous behaviour than one who simply risks losing a single vehicle.

I hope that the Minister might consider these measures before the Committee comes to vote on them later, and would welcome any reflection she might have on them. Are the Government considering any other measures to tackle the problem, and is any financial support being offered to forces to help them to make the best use of technology in this area?

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister on the menace that unauthorised, misused motorised vehicles cause to our society. Untaxed bikes are roaring through our housing estates. Just this weekend, I was taking my dog for a walk and three untaxed motorbikes were roaring up and down the road, where there were young children and families walking along. My dog got scared every time they went past.

These vehicles are a real menace. Illegal e-scooters whizz along the pavements. In Basildon, in south Essex, two young people were killed on an illegal e-scooter only recently. That is really sad: two young children had their lives ended on one of these illegal e-scooters. Modified electric bikes are also being dangerously driven on our roads. In my constituency, this is very much an urban problem, but the problem exists in different forms in rural areas. It affects all communities in one way or another.

There is also the issue of crime associated with illegal bikes and illegal e-scooters. The shadow Minister has lots of ideas on how to solve this problem, but during the last year of the Conservative Government, there were an average of 214 snatch thefts, often facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, every day on our streets in England and Wales. That was a 150% increase on the previous year. That shows the former Government’s massive disregard for law and order. The Conservative party now comes here with ideas for improvement, but we are actually taking action to stop this problem.

The fact that a warning is needed before these ridiculous illegal vehicles are seized creates an element of immunity for users—if they are going to get a warning, they will keep trying to push their luck—so I welcome the removal of that requirement. It is time to get tough in this area and give the police the powers they need to act promptly.

[Harriet Cross]

I completely agree that it is time to get serious about this issue. Will the hon. Member support our new clause that would give police the power to confiscate these vehicles from people’s houses?

[David Burton-Sampson]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but the key is to get these vehicles as soon as they are spotted on the streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I want to make a brief point about the noise nuisance of vehicles. We are rightly focusing a lot of remarks on how dangerous these vehicles are for ordinary citizens trying to go about their day, but to reinforce a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about modified exhausts, I will share mine and my constituents’ annoyance at these things. It is unreasonable that someone in their own house with their windows closed should have to listen to a vehicle going by. Someone going for a walk on a nice sunny day has to listen to this antisocial behaviour, which has no benefit at all, as far as I can tell, in terms of the quality of the vehicle.

[Harriet Cross]

If one way to help reduce the likelihood that someone in their private house with the windows closed would not have to listen to these vehicles—as no one should—was to have powers to seize them from inside someone’s house, would the hon. Member support that?

--- Later in debate ---

The other issue I would like to raise is the use of social media by criminals to advertise their services. They hide behind anonymous or encrypted messaging services to conduct their businesses. Social media is often a way in which people are fooled into thinking that they can have their goods collected and disposed of safely and legally. Unfortunately, people are falling prey to that. I urge us to look at a proactive national education programme or campaign so that we can better inform people to ensure that their waste is disposed of legally. Fly-tipping is a blight, and we must support councils and communities to tackle it.

[Harriet Cross]

I welcome the intention of the Bill to tighten up regulations for fly-tipping, which is such a blight in our communities up and down the country. I know that the Bill refers directly to England, but up in my constituency of Gordan and Buchan, in Aberdeenshire, it is just as prevalent. It is a growing concern across the country. As the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, it has both an environmental and antisocial impact, but the impact on community cohesion is particularly important. It can be seen as a gateway, as once there are instances of fly-tipping, they escalate and escalate.

There is an example from my constituency that always sticks in my mind. There are quite a few mountain passes in and around my area. One day, I drove over one and there was a bath at the top. The next time I drove past, there was a bath and a sofa, and then it was a bath, a sofa and a bike. Eventually, I could have probably furnished a house and garden after just a few trips up and over this pass. That is how this escalates. Once incidents start happening, people think, “It’s there already, so I’ll just keep adding to it.” We must crack down on it.

We must also recognise the impact on landowners and farmers. It cannot be fair that someone who farms land has to deal with fly-tipping, on top of everything else. This is not to conflate two issues, but we have heard a lot in the last year about how farming is low on profits, at about 1%. We cannot expect farmers to bear the burden of having to put some of that money into clearing up someone else’s mess. That is why I welcome amendment 35, which seeks to ensure that, where and when perpetrators of fly-tipping are identified, they are made to pay the cost of clearing it up. That is not a burden that anyone other than the perpetrator should have to face.

Will the Minister say what conversations have been had with the devolved nations? If people are putting waste into the back of a van and driving it around, the borders are no barriers, whether they are on one side of the Scottish or Welsh border or the other. This is a cross-border issue. What implication might this have, and what conversations has the Minister had with her Scottish and Welsh counterparts to tackle this across the board?

[Joe Robertson]

A lot of good comments have been made on this provision in the Bill, which I do not wish to repeat. I note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan about consistency with the devolved nations and how people seeking to dump do not recognise borders. I can probably assure her that fly-tippers on the Isle of Wight are not likely to reach her constituency in order to perpetrate their dumping, but if the law in Scotland is not equally as strong, who knows what lengths people will go to? I want to reinforce that point, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this amendment to make the guidance as strong as possible around the fly-tipper being the payer. Clearly, we are all victims of fly-tipping, but the landowner in particular is a victim. It is completely unacceptable to any right-minded individual that the landowner should pay the costs of being a victim of a crime. I urge the Government to accept amendment 35 and make the guidance as strong as possible on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West has already spoken eloquently on new clause 44, so I do not intend to repeat his comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor extensively quoted a KC. Those words are powerful, not least because they do not come from a politician; it is always nice to hear professionals and experts in their field. I urge the Government to consider raising the maximum sentence, particularly considering that we are talking about knife crime, which is the very worst of crimes, because of the gang culture and the way that communities are destroyed when innocent young people—sometimes children—are killed.

[Harriet Cross]

I will comment briefly on clause 10, which is on the possession of a weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully for violence. The provision is much needed and, if implemented properly, would be welcome. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, though. First, how does the clause differ from existing legislation with respect to intent to cause harm or carrying an offensive weapon? Are there any nuances specific to knife crime, outwith those covered by existing legislation?

More generally, the Bill is restricted to the clauses before us, but we know that knife crime is multi-faceted—there are an awful lot of reasons why people get involved. As has been said, some feel that they need protection themselves and others do it to fit in, while for others it is to do with the environment in which they grow up. We welcome that the Government have banned zombie knives—the Conservative Government started on the road to that ban and we are glad to see that it has been implemented—but those knives are only responsible for about 3.5 % of knife attacks; every house in the country has a kitchen with knives in. What more are the Government doing, either in this Bill or outside it, to reduce knife crime by tackling the manner in which knives can be accessed and used?

The Government are setting a lot of store by the use of youth hubs to address knife crime, young offending and antisocial behaviour. Although the principle of youth hubs is admirable—and I do mean that—I have heard concerns from Members outwith this room, but certainly invested in this matter, that they may have unintended consequences. For example, where will the hubs be located? Could they entrench more turf wars? Will there be more of an impact if one is located on one gang’s land or another’s? Will some people be completely excluded simply because of their location? I ask these questions to be constructive, because I want the hubs to work for everyone. Similarly, if many different people come to the hubs—for rehabilitation reasons or if we use them to keep people off the streets for many other reasons—what is it that will prevent them from being a recruiting ground for other types of crimes? I reiterate that I am asking these questions to be constructive; I want the hubs to work, but I also do not want anyone to be pulled into more crime as a result.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

This has been a really useful debate. It has highlighted the problems that society is facing with the epidemic levels of knife crime that we have seen in recent times. It was absolutely right for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh to mention Liam Taylor and his grandmother, Julie. Liam is sadly no longer with us, but I pay tribute to Julie for her sterling work in trying to ensure that what happened to her grandson does not happen to anybody else. I also commend her work on the bleed control kits.

I have come across so many families who have lost a loved one through knife crime and want to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. We need to pay tribute to those families, including those who have joined the coalition to tackle knife crime, which the Prime Minister set up soon after the election last July. They will hold this Government to account in doing what we have said we will, which is halve knife crime over the course of the next decade. I pay tribute to Julie and all the other families working in this space to protect young people and make sure that no other family has to suffer the loss of a young person.

Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

If the witnesses are in broad agreement, it is fine if only one person answers, unless there is something else you want to raise.

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

Q Mr Murphy, can I pick up on the point about under-18s and respect orders? What sort of age would it be beneficial for the age limit to be reduced to, if that is what you were saying? Is there a particular age group where we see prolific antisocial behaviour starting to become more apparent? Also, is the definition of antisocial behaviour in the Bill wide enough? Clause 1(2)(9) states:

“‘anti-social behaviour’ means conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”

My direct question would be: is it therefore being restricted to just a “person”, or does it include instances of neighbourhood or property nuisance, where there is a large-scale impact but no single person can be identified as the recipient?

Dan Murphy: On your first point, it would obviously capture more incidents and issues if the threshold was set at a lower age, but do we want to be criminalising children with this type of offence? There is a balance, and it is a matter for Parliament and society as to whether they would like to lower that age. I can understand why it has been set at 18, but I wanted to make the point that, as it is set at 18, that power could not be used for young people.

On harassment, alarm and distress, that is a person-specific issue, compared with a community or area. In policing, if we could have something that captured that as well, we would welcome it—again, it is an extension of powers. You are putting me on the spot here, as I am thinking, “How would you prove that? Who would be your witness or injured party for a community?” I think what is provided at the moment is useful. Would it be good if it could be widened? Yes. Practically, could it be widened? I think we would probably need a whole other Committee and some lawyers to discuss that one.

[Matt Bishop]

Q May I take a moment to thank the panel, and your colleagues, for your service and continued efforts in making our communities safer? It is important to recognise that. My question is on the measures that we are implementing to provide more protection against retribution for authorised firearms officers who are facing criminal proceedings for offences committed during their duties. Do you think the measures will reassure firearms officers that the Government value the unique and dangerous work that they do? Will the measures give them more confidence moving forward than the CPS has given them recently?

Chief Constable De Meyer: It is important to point out how rare it is in this country for a firearms officer to discharge their weapon; reassuringly, it is rarer still that someone dies as a result. Obviously, it is right that there is a proper investigation wherever that happens, but I do not think it is in the interest of public safety for an officer doing such an important job to feel inhibited from doing what might be necessary, and what they are trained to do, in rare and extreme circumstances, because they are concerned that their name will be made public in a subsequent investigation, with all the risk to them personally that that entails. I cannot say for certain, and colleagues here would give a better indication as to the extent that such a measure might assuage their concerns, but it seems to me to be a necessary and sensible move.

Tiff Lynch: Without repeating what Chief Constable De Meyer has said, certainly we were pleased with the Home Secretary’s announcement on the granting of anonymity to firearms officers in those situations, particularly with NX121 and the case that followed.

Our firearms officers are volunteers. That is key and it really needs to be noted. They put themselves and their lives at risk to protect society. In these cases, for their families and their own wellbeing, and because of what may follow, it is absolutely right for them to be granted anonymity for a required period of time. To answer your question specifically about reassuring our firearms officers out there today, there is some reassurance, but again, it is a matter of time passing until they actually feel that that will continue.

Dan Murphy: It is definitely a step in the right direction. Firearms officers, like all police officers, are interested in actions rather than words. They would like to see a difference, so once they start seeing that difference, it will make a difference to them. I know that there will be some announcements on the accountability review soon. I think Dame Diana is involved in that, and I know the Government are looking at it. We are really encouraged that there may be some more positive steps that will lead to actions that support officers who put themselves in those more difficult situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop]

Q Sir Robert, during your tenure as Justice Secretary you acknowledged that the number of people prosecuted and convicted for rapes had fallen to the lowest level since records began—including having more than halved in the space of three years—while the number of reported rapes was still increasing. What specific measures did the previous Government implement to address the shortcomings? Do you believe that those efforts were sufficient to meet the victims’ needs? How can the important work on the new measures that this Government have been pursuing be taken further?

Sir Robert Buckland: Thank you for asking that question, because how to deal with what were unacceptable figures was a real judgment call on my part. I thought it was far better, as the responsible Secretary of State, to fess up and apologise, frankly, for the way in which things had happened.

It was through nobody’s deliberate fault, but you may remember the case of a young man called Liam Allan, who was accused of rape and was about to face trial when the disclosure of very important text messages totally undermined the prosecution case, and rightly it was dropped. That, and other cases of that nature, had a bit of a chilling effect—to use a well-worn phrase in these precincts—on prosecutors’ appetite for risk when it came to rape. We then entered a sort of cul-de-sac, whereby, because of concerns about disclosure and the threshold, we saw fewer and fewer cases being brought.

The situation was compounded by the fact that many complainants and victims, when faced with the rather Manichean choice between giving over your phone for months or carrying on with your phone—which is, let us face it, the basis of your life—were saying, “No, thank you. I don’t want any more of this. Frankly, I don’t want to be put through the mill again, bearing in mind the trauma I’ve already suffered,” so the attrition rates were really high.

I therefore thought it was very important that we, the police and the CPS really looked again at the way in which the cases were investigated. That is why I thought it was important that we had things such as the 24-hour guarantee on the return of phones, and Operation Soteria, which was the roll-out operation, refocusing the way in which the police and the CPS worked together on cases to yield results. I am glad to say that we have seen a progressive increase in the number of cases brought. I do not think we are there yet, and we still have to give it a bit of time and a lot more will to get to a position where we can look back.

Let us go back to the Stern review, which was done over 10 years ago. Baroness Stern produced an impressive piece of work that acknowledged the fact that there are many victims and complainants who do not want to through prosecution, and want other means by which they can come to terms with, and get to support for, their trauma. Until we get the prosecution element right and we see the right balance, I do not think we can offer a wide range of different options so that victims feel that they are respected and listened to, that action is taken early, and that they are not having to relive the trauma all over again in a way that, frankly, causes the attrition rates.

From what I see in the Bill, there are certain measures and initiatives that will help in that process, but it does require—and I emphasise this—a huge amount of political will, and the attention of this place, to make sure that the authorities are doing what you want, on behalf of your constituents, them to do.

[Harriet Cross]

Q I have a quick question about how the definitions in the Bill might have an impact on the pressure relating to the number of cases that come to court. Largely, it is about the cases that need a level of subjectiveness—for example, where there is just judgment, or there are reasonable grounds for belief. If the definitions were tightened up, would, or could, that feed through to making sure that the right cases come to magistrates and other courts? Would that help the backlog, or would it put too much pressure back on the police on the ground, who are at the frontline?

Oliver Sells: I am not sure I am able to answer that question. I have not considered the matter in great detail, and when I have not considered something I tend not to answer the question. You must forgive me if I pass that one on to a politician who no doubt has no such inhibitions.

Sir Robert Buckland: No, I have never had any inhibitions, as I think you all well know!

We have to go back to the fundamentals. We should not be bringing prosecution cases unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest. That is the very simple test for prosecutors. You need the evidence, and that is the task that can often be very difficult for the investigating authorities. I will labour the point, because it is really important. We are faced with extrinsic challenges, in which digital and assistive technologies are being used on a scale and at a pace that are at once awe-inspiring and terrifying. Unless we can enable our police and investigative agencies to have the same level of firepower, we are never going to win, and we are going to have increasing difficulty in piecing together cases that can then be prosecuted. I think particularly about fraud and the use of blockchain and virtual technology. I want to make sure that in all the work that is being done to try to improve our response to fraud—whether by the Serious Fraud Office, the CPS or the City of London police—we are really on it when it comes to technology.

As Ministers will know, the Criminal Justice Board is the ideal forum for this work to be prioritised in. Ministers can make it the board’s priority and give tasks to all the arms of the criminal justice system to get it right. We did it with rape and we have done it with other types of criminality. I think this is the moment—if it is not being seized already—at which the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary can really step up and make sure that our response to cyber-crime is not just as good as but ahead of the trends that we now see, not just here but internationally. The extrinsic threats are a wake-up call.

[The Chair]

If he can keep it to a quick minute, I call Keir Mather.

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

First and foremost, I pay my respects to all those mentioned today who have lost their life due to knife crime, and to their families. Too many families and communities have been and are being torn apart by knife crime. I welcome the constructive, compassionate and collaborative approach that Members from all parts of the House have taken to the debate. This matter is far too important, and the impacts are far too devastating, for anything but a shared focus on addressing and reducing this most violent of crimes. We cannot allow ourselves to be back here in a few years with more names and more stories, but no meaningful progress. No family, friend or school should lose a loved one to knife crime, yet far too often, that is the reality.

As others have done, I put on record my gratitude and admiration to our courageous police officers across the country who work tirelessly and fearlessly to help keep us and our communities safe. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this vital debate, and for its emphasis on knife crime among young people. We all recognise the prevalence and impacts of knife crime as a whole, but the nuances that affect young people are integral, and developing an understanding of this problem—both as it stands today and as it will develop in the future—is important.

As my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, the world that young people occupy is multilayered. It is a hybrid of online and offline, where boundaries merge, coercion persists and the reality of the consequences of actions are too often overlooked until it is too late. Young people are being exposed to things at a much younger age than ever before, and the impacts of normalising, and desensitising them to, crime and violence are still not fully understood.

Although the number of hospital admissions for knife crime has declined from its peak, the figure remains far too high. We know the impact that knife crime has on young people, so we must work to get knives out of perpetrators’ hands. Thanks to research by the Youth Endowment Fund, we have a relatively clear picture of knife crime rates among young people. A small but by no means insignificant number of young people carry offensive weapons. In the last two years, 5% of the 13 to 17-year-olds surveyed admitted to carrying offensive weapons, 47% of which were knives. This illustrates that while only a minority of those involved in serious offences are knife carriers, their impact on communities is significant. Of course, that is a nationwide figure, and rates will be significantly higher in parts of the country where knife crime is especially prevalent.

Over the past decade, a number of steps have been taken to reduce knife crime. Although violence against the person has decreased significantly since 2010, knife crime remains stubbornly high. This suggests that specific, targeted action is required to reduce knife crime offences, particularly among young people. Much-needed measures to close loopholes and introduce restrictions on zombie knives were put forward and passed under the last Government, and implemented by the current one.

Additionally, I welcome the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that replicate those in the last Government’s criminal justice Bill by placing more stringent rules on knife possession and expanding police powers. Three key measures outlined in the Bill—the creation of an offence of possessing a bladed item with intent to harm, the increase in the maximum penalty for selling weapons to under-18s, and the power to seize, retain and destroy bladed articles—have all rightly been included. Increasing the penalty for those selling knives to under-18s is clearly a step forward in enforcing stricter laws and protecting young people. Ensuring that there are penalties for a range of weapons being used by young people is vital, as the police have highlighted that individuals use social networks specifically to advertise a range of weapons to under-18s.

Stephen Clayman’s review provides a detailed assessment of the online sale of knives. I understand that the measures drawn from the assessment will be introduced as amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister what impact she believes they will have on knife sales. Does she expect a significant reduction in accessibility for those who currently acquire weapons online? When considering online sales, we must not be naive. Data shows that a significant number of weapons held by young people are kitchen knives, which, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, are widely accessible.

As Members of different parties have highlighted today, engagement, prevention and police interventions are crucial tools in not only preventing individuals from committing crimes but protecting young people, who are far too often the victims of offences committed by their peers. Stop and search saves lives and must play a role in addressing and preventing incidents of knife crime, by disrupting and removing weapons from the streets. The police must have the necessary powers to prevent crime, because far too many lives are being violently cut short. Research published in the Oxford Journal of Policing found that attempted murders could be reduced by 50% through stop and search. Knowing that the police can stop and search is a powerful deterrent.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. Yes, the police have a vital role to play in dealing with knife crime. Does she agree that our youth workers, who work with some of the most vulnerable young people up and down the country, are also a key defence in stopping knife crime? In some instances, young people who are caught up in a vicious cycle of crime trust youth workers more than they trust the police.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Member, who is so engaged and invested in this issue, for her comments. Youth workers, teachers and guardians—anyone whom a child trusts—are important in addressing this issue, and we must ensure that everybody has the powers and that society has the powers needed to address knife crime. Any action that helps reduce knife crime is an action that we should be looking at.

As well as stop and search, emerging technologies—for example, devices that allow the detection of knives at a distance and in crowded streets—could allow officers to more precisely identify and remove knives from would-be perpetrators. Alongside enforcement, prevention and early interventions require attention, and the Conservatives did make advances on that while in government. Between 2019 and 2024, violence reduction units were funded in areas of England and Wales where there was a prevalence of violent crime. According to Home Office evidence, these have led to a statistically significant reduction in hospital admissions for violent injuries. Since the funding began, an estimated 3,220 hospital admissions for violent injuries have been prevented in these funded areas.

We must also ensure that the police have the ability to be in the right place at the right time. As we have heard from Members across the House, too often it is being in the wrong place at the wrong time that leads to injury through knife crime. This is particularly crucial for young people, who congregate in hotspot areas, so ensuring that our police forces have the resources to increase patrols and increase their presence in such areas plays a key role in both prevention and response.

I acknowledge that the Government have placed significant emphasis on the delivery of Young Futures hubs to identify the young people most at risk of being drawn into crime. While we all recognise the benefits of providing support to young people, the effectiveness of the hubs will depend on implementation. Resources must be distributed effectively to ensure that young people receive the support they need, particularly given the range of activities that the Government intend the hubs to carry out alongside the reduction in knife crime. May I therefore ask the Minister how the hubs will be structured, and what work will take place outside their physical spaces to ensure effective engagement and early intervention?

We have seen police and crime commissioners using their independence to explore programmes that can provide earlier interventions. For instance, Thames Valley PCC Matthew Barber’s Operation Deter Youth ensures that youth offending services make contact with under-18s arrested for weapon or violent offences within 90 minutes of notification of arrest, followed by a house visit within 48 hours. I am not asking the Minister to be prescriptive, but will she ensure that police forces have the Government’s backing to trial innovative techniques such as knife scanning and new preventive techniques to help save young lives? Fundamentally, what are her plans to change the mindset that has developed that enables children to stab and murder other children?

Reducing knife crime among young people is a critical task for this and any Government. When we hear the names that we have heard today of some of the many—too many—young lives that have been lost to knife crime, we are reminded that these are not just statistics, but devastating events that bring untold anguish to families. We must do everything possible to bring down the numbers.

International Women�s Day

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege to speak in today�s International Women�s Day debate. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing it. I want to use the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Scottish women, and particularly those from my constituency and the wider north-east Scotland.

When we are speaking about women breaking barriers, I need look no further than Methlick in Aberdeenshire, the birthplace of Dame Evelyn Glennie. Profoundly deaf from the age of 12, Dame Evelyn did not just overcome that challenge but revolutionised our understanding of how music can be experienced, feeling vibrations all through her body to become the world�s first full-time solo percussionist. With over 100 performances worldwide each year and having commissioned more than 200 new works, she has shown how determination can transform what many would see as a limitation into a unique strength.

In Inverurie, the largest town in my constituency, we have Hannah Miley, who trained at the Garioch amateur swimming club before representing Great Britain at the London 2012 and Rio 2016 Olympics. What many do not know about her remarkable story, however, is that she spent her life training in a 25-metre pool rather than the Olympic-standard 50-metre facilities of her competitors, often sharing lanes with the public. She went on to become a Commonwealth gold medallist and now inspires the next generation of swimmers across Scotland.

In the realm of science, Aberdeen�s Professor Dame Anne Glover stands as a testament to Scottish women�s intellectual prowess. Not only did she serve as the first chief scientific adviser in Scotland but she became the first chief scientific adviser to the president of the European Commission. Her pioneering work in microbial biosensors at the University of Aberdeen has placed our region at the forefront of scientific innovation.

In agriculture, which is so important to my constituency, we see women taking ever more prominent roles. Jane Craigie from Aberdeenshire exemplifies that leadership as a co-founder of the Rural Youth Project, which connects young people with opportunities in agriculture. The skills and determination of women farmers are essential to our local economy and the future of Scotland�s agricultural sector.

It would be remiss of me not also to mention Professor Lorna Dawson CBE, who is based in Aberdeen at the James Hutton Institute. As of 2025, she has continued her pioneering work in soil forensics and has helped to solve numerous criminal cases, advising police investigations across the UK. Professor Dawson was recently awarded the Royal Society of Edinburgh�s James Hutton medal for her exceptional contribution to earth and environmental sciences. Her work connecting soil science to justice demonstrates how expertise from our region is making a difference both nationally and internationally.

Of course, it would be wrong for anyone on the Conservative Benches not to acknowledge the ground- breaking legacy of Margaret Thatcher, the UK�s first female Prime Minister whose determination to succeed in a male-dominated political world opened doors for women across the political spectrum. Her legacy continues to inspire women in politics every day.

Finally, and most important to me, there is my mum, who was, as far as has been reported, the first woman mechanic on an all-weather lifeboat when she joined the crew of a station in Ireland in 1998. There really is nothing more inspiring�if not a bit scary�for an eight-year-old to watch their mum pull on her drysuit and head out to sea in gale force conditions. She would not forgive me if I did not emphasise the open-mindedness of the men on the crew who, almost 30 years ago, were willing and able to see her potential, not her gender. Just this morning, my mum told me:

�I only became a mechanic because the crew were willing to give me a chance. Decades of tradition with fishermen took me to sea and allowed me to achieve it�particularly Tony the coxswain. If the crew hadn�t been so open-minded, I wouldn�t have become one.�

Let us use this International Women's Day to reaffirm our commitment to empowering women and creating a more equitable future for all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned.

There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in.

From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill.

I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run.

It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan—[Interruption.] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point.

That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.