Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Harriet Cross and Jess Phillips

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

--- 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)

Debate between Harriet Cross and Jess Phillips

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- 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.)