Victim Information and Counselling Services: Public Consultation

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Written Statements

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

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduces duties mandating that police and other authorised persons may request victim information such as medical records only when it is necessary and proportionate, and in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry. These duties also create special protections for victims’ counselling records, reflecting the highly sensitive nature of these records.

I am confident that these new duties, once in force, will help protect the privacy and dignity of victims within the criminal justice system and help the Government deliver on our ambitious aim to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade.

However, before we can bring in these essential reforms it is first necessary to define counselling services and issue a code of practice to which authorised persons such as police must adhere.

That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing a public consultation on both a draft code of practice for third-party material requests and a definition of counselling services.

The consultation will run for a 12-week period and will provide a valuable opportunity for the public to have their say.

A copy of the consultation and draft code of practice will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS583]

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will make a statement updating the House on Government action to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation and on progress on the recommendations of the independent inquiry.

Child sexual abuse and exploitation are the most horrific and disturbing crimes—an abuse of power against those who are most vulnerable, leaving lifelong trauma and scars. Best estimates suggest that 500,000 children are sexually abused every year. Analysis by the police found that there were 115,000 recorded cases of child sexual abuse in 2023; 4,228 group-based offences identified by the CSE taskforce, of which 1,125 were family abuse; and 717 were sexual exploitation cases. In a growing number of recorded cases, the perpetrators themselves are under 18.

The House will be aware that, in its first year of operation up to March 2024, the grooming gangs taskforce contributed to 550 arrests across the country. In the last nine months of 2024, the taskforce contributed to 597 arrests. In other words, it surpassed in that nine-month period what it achieved in its first full year of operation. Data for the first three months of this year is currently being collected from forces and will be available early next month, but all round we are making progress at every level to increase the number of investigations, the number of arrests and, most importantly, the number of victims who are seeing their attackers brought to justice.

Despite the seriousness and severity of these crimes, there has been a shameful failure by institutions and those in power over many years to protect children from abuse or exploitation, so we are today setting out a progress update on action this Government are taking to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation, to get support and justice for victims, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and put behind bars.

Action on CSA since the election means that we are introducing a new child sexual abuse police performance framework, including new standards on public protection, child abuse and exploitation; legislation targeting online offending, including abuse and grooming enabled by artificial intelligence; new powers for Border Force to detect digitally held child sex abuse at the UK border; new restrictions preventing registered sex offenders from changing their names to hide the threat they pose; and increased investment in law enforcement capability, through the police undercover online network and the Tackling Organised Exploitation Programme.

In the Home Secretary’s statement to the House in January, she set out what we are doing to crack down on grooming gangs, and today I can provide an update on that work. Baroness Casey’s three-month national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse is ongoing. It is building a comprehensive national picture of what is known about child sexual exploitation, identifying local and national trends, assessing the quality of data, looking at the ethnicity issues faced, for example, by cases involving Pakistani heritage gangs, and reviewing police and wider agency understanding. We are developing a new best practice framework to support local authorities that want to undertake victim-centred local inquiries or related work, drawing on the lessons from local independent inquiries such as those in Telford, Rotherham and Greater Manchester. We will publish the details next month.

Alongside that, we will set out the process through which local authorities can access the £5 million national fund to support locally-led work on grooming gangs. Following feedback from local authorities, the fund will adopt a flexible approach to support both full independent local inquiries and more bespoke work, including local victims’ panels or locally led audits of the handling of historical cases.

The chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Gavin Stephens, has, at the Home Secretary’s request, urged the chief constables of all 43 police forces in England and Wales to re-examine their investigations into group-based child sexual exploitation that resulted in a “no further action” decision. As of 1 April, the Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel can review child sexual abuse cases that took place after 2013. Victims and survivors can now ask the panel to independently review their case if they have not already exercised their victims’ right to review.

I can also announce that we intend to expand the independent child trafficking guardian scheme across all of England and Wales, providing direct support to many more child victims of sexual exploitation and grooming that to date has only been available in selected areas. These measures will enable more victims and survivors to receive the truth, justice, improvements and accountability they deserve and put more vile perpetrators of this crime behind bars.

Much of this crucial activity builds on the vital work of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse that was undertaken between 2015 and 2022. Let me, on behalf of the whole House, again thank Professor Alexis Jay for chairing that seven-year national inquiry with such expertise, diligence and compassion. IICSA revealed the terrible suffering caused to many child sexual abuse victims, and the shameful failure of institutions to put the protection of children before the protection of their own reputations. The inquiry drew on the testimony of over 7,000 victims and survivors, and considered over 2 million pages of evidence. Its findings, culminating in the final report published in October 2022, were designed to better protect children from sexual abuse, and address the shortcomings that left them exposed to harm. The publication of that final report two and a half years ago should have been a landmark moment, but instead the victims and survivors were failed again. None of the inquiry’s recommendations were implemented or properly taken forward by the previous Government in the 20 months they had to do so.

As part of today’s progress update on our action on child sexual abuse, the Government are setting out a detailed update and timetable for the work that is under way on the IICSA recommendations. I can announce to the House that, to prioritise the protection of children and improve national oversight and consistency of child protection practice, this Government will establish a new child protection authority. Building on the national child safeguarding review panel, the child protection authority will address one of IICSA’s central recommendations by providing national leadership and learning on child protection and safeguarding. Work to expand the role of the panel will begin immediately, and we will consult on developing the new authority this year. We have also asked Ofsted, His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and the Care Quality Commission to conduct a joint thematic review of child abuse in family settings, starting this autumn.

The IICSA report recommended the introduction of a new mandatory duty to report—something that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have all supported for more than a decade. In the Crime and Policing Bill we will now be taking forward a new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse for individuals in England undertaking activity with children and, crucially, a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under that duty. Mandatory reporting will create a culture of openness and honesty, rather than cover-ups and secrecy. It will empower professionals and volunteers to take prompt, decisive action to report sexual abuse. It will demonstrate to children and young people that if they come forward, they will be heard. Anyone who deliberately seeks to prevent someone from fulfilling their mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse will face the full force of the law.

Today’s update also sets out how the Government are supporting victims and survivors in accessing support and seeking justice. We are tasking the criminal justice joint inspectorates to carry out a targeted inspection of the experiences of victims of child sexual abuse in the criminal justice system. We are instructing the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce a code of practice on the retention of personal data relating to child sexual abuse. In some cases, where serious institutional failings contributed to the abuse, those institutions have provided financial redress schemes or compensation to victims and survivors who are affected. We continue to support those schemes as recognition by those institutions that they badly failed children in their care.

On the IICSA proposal for a wider national redress scheme for all victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in institutional settings, the scale of that proposal demands that it is considered in the context of the spending review later this year, and we will make further updates at that stage.

One crucial area where we want to make immediate progress is the provision of therapeutic services for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. We will therefore bring forward proposals in the coming weeks to improve access to those services; further details will be set out following the spending review. Ahead of the spending review, I can announce that in this financial year the Home Office will double the funding it provides for national services, supporting adult survivors of child sexual abuse, and providing more help to those adults who are living with the trauma of the horrific abuse they suffered as children.

Finally, we want to speed up progress to make it easier for victims and survivors to get recompense directly from the institutions that failed them. We are therefore removing the three-year limitation period on victims and survivors bringing personal injury claims in the civil courts, and shifting the burden of proof from survivors to defendants, thereby protecting victims from having to relive their trauma to get the compensation they are owed.

Today’s update, building on the measures that the Home Secretary announced in January, demonstrates this Government’s steadfast commitment to tackling child sexual abuse. The measures we are implementing will protect more children, find more criminals, and deliver support and justice to more victims and survivors. But this is not the end point; it is just the beginning. We will continue to drive forward reforms to protect more children from abhorrent abuse, and support more adult survivors of those traumatic crimes. As we pursue our safer streets mission, we will use every available lever to drive progress on these issues, across Government and beyond.

I want to finish with a word for the victims and survivors. No one should go through what they did. While the failings of the past cannot be undone, we can, we must, and we will strain every sinew to prevent them from being repeated. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Katie Lam.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

In January, the Home Secretary said that the Government would conduct five local inquiries into the rape gangs who have terrorised so many innocent children. More than three months since the Government announced those local inquiries, Tom Crowther KC, a barrister invited by the Home Office to help establish them, knows almost nothing about their progress, and neither do we. Why is the framework for local inquiries now being led by Ministers, rather than by independent voices such as Tom Crowther? Why is the £5 million set aside for inquiries no longer being allocated, but instead delivered on an “opt-in” basis? What do the Government intend to do about local leaders who say there is no need for an independent inquiry, as they do in Bradford and in Wales?

The girls we are talking about are predominantly white. The men who preyed on them were predominantly Muslim, generally either from Pakistan or of Pakistani heritage. One of the victims from Dewsbury was told by her rapist:

“We’re here to fuck all the white girls and fuck the Government.”

Does the Minister accept that in many cases these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated? How, without a national inquiry, can we understand what part those factors played?

There is no question but that the state has failed these children time and again. Take the case of “Anna” from Bradford. Vulnerable and in residential care, at the age of 14 she made repeated reports of rape and abuse to social workers who were responsible for her. Just the following year, aged 15, she “married” her abuser in a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. Far from stepping in to stop it, her social worker was a guest. The authorities then arranged for her to be fostered by her abuser’s parents. The ringleader of the Rochdale rape gang, Shabir Ahmed, was employed as a welfare rights officer by Oldham council. Yet not one person—not one—has been convicted for covering up these institutionalised rapes. Why have Ministers refused to establish a dedicated unit in the National Crime Agency to investigate councillors and officials accused of collusion and corruption?

I am sorry to say that that unit must also investigate police officers. In one case, the father of an abuse victim in Rotherham was arrested by South Yorkshire police when he attempted to rescue his daughter from her abusers. He was detained twice in one night, while on the very same evening, his daughter was repeatedly assaulted and abused by a gang of men. It is clear that these criminals were unafraid of law enforcement. In Kirklees, Judge Marson said:

“You were seen with your victim on at least three occasions by the police…none of that deterred you, and you continued to rape her.”

How, without a national inquiry, can we know how and why these monsters enjoyed effective immunity for so long, and how can we be sure that it will not happen again?

Conservative Members have voted for a national inquiry, and tabled amendments that would guarantee the publication of ethnicity data on a quarterly basis, terminate the parental rights of convicted sex offenders, and make membership of a grooming gang an aggravating factor during sentencing, so that offenders get the longer, harsher sentences that they deserve. Will the Minister commit to accepting those amendments to protect our children?

Finally, I would like to read to the House one particular ordeal—just one example of what these children have suffered. I must warn colleagues, and especially those in the Gallery, that this is extremely graphic, but we must not look away or sanitise this evil. Sentencing Mohammed Karrar of Oxford to life in prison, Judge Peter Rook said: “You prepared her”—that is his victim, a 13-year-old girl—

“for gang anal rape by using a pump to expand her anal passage. You subjected her to gang rape by five or six men. At one point she had four men inside her. A red ball was placed in her mouth to keep her quiet… When she was 12, after raping her, she threatened you with your lock knife. Your reaction was to pick up a baseball bat with a silver metal handle, strike her on the head with it, and then insert the baseball bat inside her vagina.”

This is not about me, the Minister, the Home Secretary or any hon. Members in the Chamber; it is about the little girls, up and down our country, whose brutal and repeated rapes were permitted and hidden by those in the British state whose jobs were to protect them. They deserve justice. In five towns, those children and their families may get partial answers, but I have mentioned five towns in the past few minutes alone, and there are at least 45 more. In those places, children and their families will get no answers at all, so what does the Minister have to say to them? The British people deserve to know the truth. What darker truths does the suffering of those girls reveal about this country—and why will the Government not find out?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady; I think it is a shame that she referred to only one sort of child abuse victim, when the statement is clearly about all child abuse victims. There should be no hierarchy; we are also talking about children raped by their fathers or raped in other circumstances, such as in children’s homes and institutions, over many years. It is a shame that she did not speak about any of their experiences, notwithstanding the very graphic and upsetting stories that she did tell.

Obviously, I have worked for many years with the exact girls that the hon. Lady talked about. Much of what she already knows is because of the inquiries that have already occurred, such as in Rotherham and in Rochdale. She did not refer at all to the two-year inquiry that was part of the IICSA panel. That was a statutory inquiry that looked into lots of areas, and I wonder if she maybe wants to reacquaint herself with the 200 pages of that report.

I understand the hon. Lady’s sense of anger and urgency about the issue. None of this is her fault—she was not here at the time—but she worked with the then Minister, who sat in offices where I now sit and did not lift a single finger on any of the recommendations contained in the Jay inquiry. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), spent almost two years as Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire. During his time in that role, he held 352 external meetings, including 23 separate meetings on the policing of protests, but not once did he hold a discussion on grooming gangs or what the police were doing to investigate them. He did not have one meeting with the police, victims, local authorities or Alexis Jay, who had some choice words to say about some of the special advisers—I do not know if the hon. Lady knows who they were—in the Department when Alexis Jay was trying to get her requirements across the line.

Today, the Government have published a detailed and systematic action plan for the future. It is not about headlines; it is about the frontline. It is about how these things are going to take time in lots and lots of areas of our country. This does not happen overnight because somebody wins a political argument. It is going to take work, and I very much welcome the hon. Lady joining me, unlike in the years when I was the Opposition spokesperson, when the current shadow Home Secretary never bothered to involve me.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome today’s action plan. I particularly welcome the creation of a new child protection authority and the doubling of funding for groups who are helping survivors and victims of child abuse, up and down the country. The independent inquiry into grooming gangs in Rochdale, commissioned by Greater Manchester’s Mayor, Andy Burnham, was detailed and thorough, and found serious failings by the statutory authorities. The priority for my constituents is to ensure that we are protecting women and girls in the here and now, as well as convicting perpetrators of past crimes. Few people know that there is no specific criminal offence of grooming, so may I thoroughly welcome the Government’s decision to make grooming an aggravating offence in child sex abuse, with longer sentences? That is long overdue, as it was recommended in Alexis Jay’s inquiry, but ignored by the previous Government.

[Jess Phillips]

I have enjoyed working with my hon. Friend, and other people in Rochdale, over the years on these issues. I hope that places like Rochdale, where there have already been independent inquiries, will be able to access some of the flexible funds to do victim-led follow-up work on where we are now. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in the future and yes, I too am pleased that grooming will be an aggravating factor. It was a recommendation from Jay—in fact, it was recommended even before the final IICSA recommendation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for the progress update to Parliament, as promised. We welcome the progress that is being made by the Government on this issue, which tragically continues to blight our society.

As the Minister said, children across this country are still victims of these abhorrent crimes, and survivors await justice from previous abuse and exploitation The Liberal Democrats believe, as Members from across the House would echo, that no child should ever be subjected to sexual abuse or exploitation, and it is clear that real action is needed to prevent such sickening acts from occurring. We have made it clear that steps must be taken at all levels of Government to better protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation in the future, and to fully deliver justice for survivors and victims. In particular, we welcome the Government’s announcement of a new child protection authority and extra funding for national services that support adult survivors of sexual abuse. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to establish a child protection authority, and I know she is delighted to see that coming forward today.

The Lib Dems are committed to working proactively and constructively with the Government and the whole House to support and protect vulnerable children at risk of exploitation and abuse, unlike the Conservatives, sadly, who are still shamefully using the victims of grooming gangs scandal as a political football—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats continue to commend the work of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse by Professor Alexis Jay. We continue to call on the Government to urgently implement all 20 of her recommendations that, as the Minister has mentioned, the Conservatives failed to act on in government.

The Minister has spoken about some of the recommendations today, namely national leadership, learning on child protection and safeguarding, and a mandatory duty to report, but can she commit today to implementing all the report’s recommendations? In so doing, can she confirm that the new child protection authority will act as a national oversight mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Jay review’s recommendations across all relevant agencies and Departments? If not, will such a mechanism be brought forward? The Lib Dems support anything that will deliver justice for victims and help to prevent these sickening crimes from happening in future.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for her work in this area. I am always keen to encourage cross-party work on these issues, and I recognise that the child protection agency had been pushed for previously.

A consultation will be launched on exactly what the oversight mechanism of the CPA will look like. It will initially be part of the national panel, and that will then be built on. The consultation will take time rather than up-ending an entire system—that will be the process that we will go through—and I would very much welcome help from Members across the House in that process. On the implementation of all the recommendations in the Jay review, a detailed plan has been published today as part of this announcement. I invite hon. Members to look at that and to push for more, as I would do if I were not in my current ministerial position.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

When Alexis Jay appeared before the Home Affairs Committee earlier this year, she was clear that at no point in seven years, under seven Conservative Home Secretaries, did anyone say that her inquiry was either too broad or too narrow, and nobody suggested to her that there needed to be further inquiries beyond what she produced. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the three-year limitation period will be lifted, because we know that the average length of abuse for children is four years, and the average length of time that it takes someone to disclose their abuse is 26 years. Will the Minister set out how the child protection authority will work in practice? What will the funding situation be and what discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury? What is the timing to get it up and running as soon as possible, and may I ask for a guarantee that the voices of survivors will be central in the establishment of the authority?

[Jess Phillips]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the voices of survivors have to be part of absolutely everything that we do going forward. The CPA will immediately form part of the panel and extra funding will be provided in this year’s funding to build on the analytical resources that it needs. The consultation will be ongoing with experts, including the likes of Alexis Jay, who has been very involved in the conversations—finally; unfortunately, she had previously been left out in the cold—and we will look at what the best model will be, along with survivors and experts in the field.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I have to say that I am completely infuriated by today’s statement. Here we are, on the very last sitting day before the Easter recess, and the Government have all but admitted that no real progress whatsoever has been made on their promise to launch five local rape gang inquiries before Easter. It gets worse: for more than five years, leaders at the very top of Bradford council in my constituency have denied, refused and covered up, every single time I and victims, survivors and their families have called for a full rape gang inquiry across Keighley and the wider Bradford district.

Yet the Minister and this Government refuse to face the facts. Bradford’s leadership simply will not act by itself, so why are this Government letting the very councils that failed victims decide whether they want to be investigated? When will this Government step up, use their statutory powers and give the victims and survivors in areas such as Keighley and the wider Bradford district the full inquiry that they have wanted for almost two decades?

[Jess Phillips]

First and foremost, I pay the hon. Gentleman absolute credit. For years, he has spoken up about this issue—I am actually surprised that we have not had closer conversations. I would very much welcome some time with him to understand exactly what is going on in his local area—I think that is actually being arranged, from the letters he has sent to me. I am more than happy to sit down with him. Absolutely nothing that I have said today suggests that Bradford would not be able to access funding from the Home Office, just as Oldham has, to undertake the work that might be needed there. I would very much welcome a conversation with him about that.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the progress that she is making. I thank her for her very long and deep commitment to this issue and to seeing justice for victims. I will ask her about the version of mandatory reporting that she proposes to introduce. My understanding is that the mandatory reporting duty will apply in situations where a person has witnessed abuse or received a disclosure of abuse, which seems to be quite a high bar. There are many examples of abuse taking place in schools and in children’s homes, for example, in which it emerged later that suspicions of abuse were very widespread, but nobody witnessed the abuse, received a disclosure of it or reported their suspicions, allowing the abuse to continue. Is my hon. Friend confident that the version of mandatory reporting that she is introducing is at the right threshold? Will she commit to review the impact of the new measure once it has taken effect and to strengthen it in future if needed?

[Jess Phillips]

I praise my hon. Friend for her commitment to these issues over the years. She is right: the thresholds for mandatory reporting are a finely balanced tool. We had to land on the criminal justice outcomes for the most egregious cases, as other Members have mentioned, where it seemed that social workers were directly covering up and where there were professional sanctions when people just failed to report. She talked about the issue of signs. I very much hope that that will be dealt with in the training and the roll-out of this measure, but when any new law comes into place and we roll out training, we will absolutely review it as we go along.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I welcome the mandatory reporting progress. It is worth acknowledging the Bill that I led through the House, which has now paid out £100 million in Northern Ireland to survivors of institutional sexual abuse. During the progress of that Bill and the discussions I had, the mealy-mouthed apologies from institutions were abhorrent. May I urge the Minister to push very hard on church institutions and other institutions to ensure that they pay and they apologise?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. Some of the changes that the right hon. Gentleman will read about in the documents that will be published subsequently concern that exact issue of an apology, and the limitations of mealy-mouthed apologies. What that means to the victims is so awful, so I will absolutely commit to push the institutions to do exactly what they need to do to make honest apologies. I have to say that, in recent weeks and months, we have not always had the best examples of that on display.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

The victims of child sexual abuse were badly let down by institutions. We must recognise that this continues, and that it is the responsibility of us all to act, so I warmly welcome the commitment to introducing mandatory reporting. It has taken too long to get to this place. Will the Minister say a little more about the training that will be available to professionals and volunteers, so that they can spot the signs and indicators? Will she say more about how we will ensure that local victim panels are resourced adequately?

[Jess Phillips]

In answer to my hon. Friend’s first question, at the beginning of next month, we will publish exactly how local panels can be set up and the work that can happen in local authority areas. Alongside the mandatory duty legislation, there will be written guidance, and training will be provided. When we talk about people who work with children, we often think of teachers or social workers, but we are also talking about sports coaches, people in the clergy, and lots of other people, so the guidance will have to be both quite widely drawn and specific.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I share her disappointment that the Conservatives have sought to pick out one particular community. Day after day in this Chamber, they vilify Muslims. As somebody who has Muslim family and brown skin, I say that we feel increasingly uncomfortable in our own country, given the attacks that we hear, day after day, from the Conservatives on all Muslims. It is an absolute disgrace.

I welcome the child protection authority. On the fact that the Conservatives did not introduce it when they were in government and able to do so, Professor Jay told me that they claimed that they did not have legislative time. We all know that they did. I press the Minister to give me her personal assurance that she will work with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that we strengthen our online safety regulation and do not water it down in any way, because Professor Jay is very clear that online sexual exploitation and abuse are huge and growing.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. Even in the two and a half years since Alexis Jay published her review, we have come to know even more about the harms occurring online. The Online Safety Act 2023 finally came into force only last month, but the Government have made it clear that where there is a need to go further on various issues, such as on the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, we will absolutely look at that.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As many have said, any time we look at child sexual abuse in this place and beyond, we must always put the victims first. I welcome the statement by the Safeguarding Minister, and the emphasis that she has placed on supporting police investigations across the country to get justice for victims, and to ensure that those responsible are put behind bars. The grooming gangs taskforce contributed to 550 arrests, and we have heard today that there were 597 arrests in the last months of 2024. Will she give us further details on how the new measures will ensure that we can truly work collaboratively across Government, police forces, the public sector and local authorities to protect all children from sexual abuse, and to ensure that, as a Government, we do not allow the shameful failure of institutions that protect themselves before they protect our children?

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Really working in partnership, and not just saying that we are, is important at the highest level, here in these buildings and in Whitehall. We have set up an inter-ministerial group—I am a member of it, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby)—to ensure that we are working together. The level of engagement from Ministers and Secretaries of State, working through the Cabinet Office, has made it a pleasure to produce these documents. We have to make sure that this work is also happening locally. Measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to improve multi-agency working, and the reform of social work, will be vital to our finally getting a grip on this issue.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I know that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to child sexual abuse specialist prosecutors, who deploy their considerable expertise to put together cases that can be based on complex and—as we have heard—very distressing evidence. Will the Minister make sure that a fair share of resources reach those prosecutors? She will recognise that just as the public expect child sexual abuse to be detected, they also expect it to be effectively prosecuted.

[Jess Phillips]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a really good point. The legal process is a forgotten part of the system; having worked for many years with Nazir Afzal, for example, who was the prosecutor on the Rochdale cases, I can say that those prosecutors can really be forgotten. We have asked the joint inspectorate to look specifically into the justice system and what needs to be done, but there are undoubtedly cases waiting in the long backlog because the prosecutors, defence and court space are not available. Dealing with that has to be part of a much bigger piece of work, but I will absolutely take away what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, and I pay tribute to her for her considerable expertise in this field. The victim-survivors of childhood sexual abuse have spent far too long waiting for justice. As my hon. Friend said, childhood sexual abuse knows no hierarchy; it also knows no borders. We have different legislative systems within this country, and we cannot allow action to be taken in one area only, with victims potentially being left out. What discussions is my hon. Friend having with the Scottish Government, so that we can take this work forward on a joint basis?

[Jess Phillips]

We have had discussions with our Scottish counterparts on some of the legislation that we are currently passing, including the legislation on child sexual abuse online, artificial intelligence, and some of the dangers that Alexis Jay rightly pointed out in the final recommendations of her report. We have those conversations; obviously, issues of child protection are devolved to Scotland, but we cannot do this work in isolation, especially because children are trafficked across the border. I am always very happy to work with counterparts in the Scottish Government to drive progress—and, frankly, to learn from them sometimes.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I share the anger and frustration expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about the lack of progress on inquiring into the rape gangs, and I was incredibly disappointed by the Minister’s failure to answer a single question put to her by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), including the refusal to acknowledge that these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated. I will repeat just one of those questions: in many of the rape gang cases, councillors, council workers and police officers were complicit and often corrupt, so why are the Government refusing to set up a specialist unit in the National Crime Agency to investigate those who should have protected those innocent girls, but instead participated in and facilitated their abuse?

[Jess Phillips]

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, if criminal cases can be brought against any of those people, I am more than happy to speak to the taskforce that is working to improve the number of arrests—as I said, we have seen an increase in arrests—and see where criminal cases can be brought against them. I am more than happy to see those people locked up for as long as they deserve. However, we were left for some decades without a mandatory reporting duty on the statute books, one that would enable us to take to task, through the criminal justice system, the people who covered this up. We will rectify that.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement; I do not think there is anyone who could lead more credibly on this issue. It is absolutely disgusting that the last Government had 89 weeks to implement the recommendations of the Jay inquiry but implemented absolutely zero of them, yet Conservative Members come here today to grandstand on this issue. A decade ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions recommended mandatory reporting—he happens to be our Prime Minister now, of course—so it has taken 10 years for this to happen. What has been lost in that time, and what can be gained in the coming years?

[Jess Phillips]

Unfortunately, what has been lost in that time is the ability to hold people to account. Even if, in a statutory inquiry, information was found out, for example about councillors, that would not lead to their arrest—that is not what a statutory inquiry does. Nobody is in prison as a result of any of the statutory inquiries we have had, so we want to focus our attention on criminalising those people. I am afraid to say that in the absence of mandatory reporting, we have seen lots of people get away with cover-ups in the intervening years. What I hope for the future is not that I see lots of people locked up who are bad, but that this change creates a culture of openness and transparency in child protection services. That is what should be celebrated, not the reputation of the organisation.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

My blood is boiling as I listen to the stuff coming from Conservative Members. If they had read the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, they would recognise that there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today—people just like me, white girls—who suffered at the hands of white men who have got clean away with it, because nothing was done for so long. I welcome today’s statement. I think it is absolutely brilliant, and I am very glad to hear that it is the start of a plan, not the finish.

Of course, this is not rocket science. I recognise the value of mandatory reporting and the importance of criminalising those who obstruct reporting by individuals, but could we step that down a little bit, and say that those who coerce people into not reporting, or gently discourage them from doing so, should also be criminalised? As the Minister knows, I have been working on an amendment to clause 45 of the Crime and Policing Bill that would cover religious institutions and faith-based organisations. There should no longer be a convention of absolute confidentiality for those who take confession in a religious setting; there is a conflict and a tension there. We need to make sure in some way that it is made explicit that no one should be excluded from mandatory reporting.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We now have many laws on coercion in our country—passing laws on coercion is something that the previous Government did do. If it can be evidenced that anybody coerced somebody into not reporting, or gently tried to cover something up, that would be seen as criminal and considered to be a cover-up. Obviously, this will all be tested when such cases come to pass.

Funnily enough, the Crime and Policing Bill Committee, which I am also meant to be on, may get up to clause 45 today—we will get back to that Committee immediately after this statement. I am more than happy to have conversations with the hon. Lady, but the Church, faith leaders and faith groups are absolutely within the purview of the measures. Making sure that we do not create workarounds for certain things is in everybody’s best interest.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), gave very graphic and disturbing examples of horrific abuse suffered by just a couple of the young ladies affected by these grooming gangs. She asked important questions about the gangs, and I was disappointed that instead of answering her questions, the Minister talked about the number of meetings that her predecessors have had, and about the fact that many girls are abused by people who are not in grooming gangs. Of course that is true, but both are important.

The Minister, in answer to an earlier question, invited another Member

“to push for more, as I would do if I were not in my current ministerial position.”

Why are the inquiries limited to only five areas? What about those in the other areas? Does she not recognise that giving people a choice on whether their area is investigated or not is an incentive for those who wish to cover up either to not bid or to not bid well for those inquiries? Above all, who or what is preventing her from delivering the more that she would push for if she was sitting here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely nobody is stopping me from pushing for more, as I am sure all my ministerial colleagues would tell the hon. Lady, having been in meetings with me. I think this is about the point of view of Parliament. Parliament is here to strength-test the things we do, and I welcome that. To the point that the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) made, this is just the beginning, not the end, as I said in my statement.

The details of how local areas can bid into that scheme will, as I have said, be published by the end of the month. I mentioned grooming gang victims many, many times throughout my statement. I also mentioned other victims in the many other inquiries that have gone on. I only wish that people were quite so well versed in some of the other areas. My only criticism of the shadow Minister on the shadow Front Bench is that she only mentioned one; I mentioned many.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I know the Minister is passionate about this issue and I commend her for her efforts. Would she not agree that the sentencing for these most abhorrent crimes needs to truly reflect the seriousness of the offence? I do not think anyone can sit in this House today and not be broken or feel sick to the pit of their stomach when we hear accounts from the Front Benchers. Anyone who takes away the innocence of a child must serve the toughest of sentences. After all, these children have been subjected to a lifetime of trauma as a result of these horrific acts.

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, because for the victims I have worked with over the years, it is a life sentence; it is not something that goes away. That is one of the reasons I feel strongly about trying to improve the levels of therapeutic support for children and adults, and that has been a real priority for me. She is absolutely right on the sentencing. The Government are undertaking a sentencing review in the broader sense, and we are putting grooming as an aggravating factor into sentencing and into the law. I am meant to be in two places at once, and in fact that clause is probably being discussed in Committee literally right now.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s statement and the progress they are making on implementing recommendations from the Jay review, and I am deeply disappointed that the Conservatives have chosen to respond to the statement in this way and refuse to acknowledge any progress that the Government are making after years of inaction on the Conservatives’ part.

As the Minister knows, before being elected to this House, I was the chief executive of Devon Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Services, an organisation that supports victims of child sexual abuse. I know how vital these support services are to rebuilding the lives of those who have been shattered by abuse, helping them to become adults who can live a more settled and fulfilling life. That organisation is dealing with a funding cut of around a third, and it has already had to close its helpline. I know that many other similar organisations across the country are facing a similar cliff edge due to funding cuts, as well as pressures from inflation and national insurance increases. I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of a doubling in funding for adult survivors of child sexual abuse. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that children who have been victims of child sexual exploitation and grooming can receive timely access to appropriate victim support and trauma-informed services?

[Jess Phillips]

Specifically on victims of grooming, we will set out the commissioning for the new service across England and Wales for the independent child trafficking guardians, as I said in my statement. Children who access through the national referral mechanism as trafficking victims—lots of British children who are groomed access through that system—will be able to access support through that service. As is laid out in the documents, improvements are needed in children’s sexual violence therapeutic support. Anyone who has worked on the frontline would know that, as would anyone who has tried to make a referral through the generic services. It would be disingenuous of me to stand here before the comprehensive spending review and make a commitment —I am not sure the Chancellor would thank me—but one of the major recommendations of IICSA was about children’s therapeutic support, which is very much at the front of my mind while we go through the comprehensive spending review.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers and her commitment to bring justice for the victims. No one denies that the hon. Lady has a big heart and a real determination to get the answers we all wish to see. With sexual offences at an all-time high in Northern Ireland—I know that she has an interest in Northern Ireland—and with some 4,232 such incidents recorded between April 2022 and March 2023, which was an increase of some 4.7% on the previous year, it is clear that the protection of children, our most vulnerable people, needs to be a priority. What discussions will she have with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that Northern Ireland has the support needed to address these horrifying figures? We have to understand that every incident reported sits against those that are not. We are perhaps just not getting to the real figure.

[Jess Phillips]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that although we have arguments in this House about data, what data has not been collected and what progress we have made, the reality is that we will never know about the vast majority of data, because we do not ever see it. That is something we should all strive to overcome. I visited Northern Ireland recently and went to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and worked specifically with the team dealing with online child sex abuse. We looked at the processes they were undertaking through undercover action on that particular issue. That will continue, and not just because part of my heart is in Northern Ireland through my father. Having worked with the PSNI and met those in the Executive, I know that there is real determination in Northern Ireland. That is perhaps because it is largely led by women—well done, Northern Ireland—but there is real appetite, and we will happily work with those people as much as we can.

Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

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 ---

[Jess Phillips]

I do not ask this to catch out the hon. Gentleman, but has he read either of the two independent inquiries specifically into Rotherham? One was written by Alexis Jay and the other by Dame Louise Casey for the previous Government. What does the hon. Gentleman think will be found for the Rotherham victims that was not found in either of the two independent inquiries or in the statutory grooming gang inquiry undertaken by Alexis Jay? We say, “Never again,” but we still have not implemented the recommendations of those inquiries.

[Jack Rankin]

I have read the Jay report but not the other report. I am speaking to clause 43, not the amendments, so I am supporting the Government in my remarks—the Minister can get me later.

Clause 43 is intended to compel transparency. It holds those in positions of power accountable when they turn away, and it provides law enforcement with the tools it needs to intervene earlier, investigate more thoroughly and prosecute more decisively.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Power to deport foreign nationals for possession of child sexual abuse images—

“(1) The Protection of Children Act 1978 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 (Indecent photographs of children) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) Where a person is a foreign national and is charged with—

(a) an offence under subsection (1), or

(b) is found to be carrying an electronic device storing child sexual abuse images under section 164B of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,

the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in accordance with section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.”

This new clause would make foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images subject to automatic deportation.

[Jess Phillips]

Many individuals who pose a direct risk to children travel frequently across the UK border to commit child sex abuse offences abroad. Before the development of digital media, child sexual abuse material would typically be present in physical form, such as printed photographs or DVDs. Border Force officers did and do have the power to search for that material under existing legislation, namely the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Child sexual abuse material is now usually held digitally on devices such as phones, tablets and laptops, which are almost always password-protected. Currently, Border Force officers can compel individuals to present these devices but cannot compel them to unlock the devices so that the contents can be inspected. As I am sure everybody would agree, that is nonsense. Clause 44 will give Border Force officers the power to require an individual who is reasonably suspected of child abuse offences to unlock their devices in furtherance of a search. If they refuse, they can now be arrested for the existing offence of wilful obstruction.

The Home Office maintains a database of all known CSAM, known as the child abuse image database. Clause 44 allows officers to scan the contents of an unlocked device to detect the presence of the hashes, or digital fingerprints, of these images. The scan will be limited to this. Therefore, there is no risk of collateral intrusion. When they unlock phones, it will be to look for child abuse material; it will not be to look at anything else they might have been buying off Amazon. That is the purpose of the clause. It was very strongly requested by law enforcement and Border Force. Their hands have been tied for a while on this.

--- 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 ---

[Luke Taylor]

We welcome the clauses in this group, but I have a simple question about clauses 45 and 47. Why does the Bill not go further than the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did in 2024? It could include the IICSA recommendation that observing recognised indicators of child sexual abuse be a reason to suspect. Can the Minister give an explanation of why that key finding of the Jay report is not included in the Bill and whether opportunities are being missed to go that little bit further?

I also agree with amendment 43. Obviously, in some recent high-profile cases, the belief that something had been reported by another person was notoriously used to explain why there had not been further reporting. This would provide a backstop to prevent that explanation from being used to absolve an individual of their responsibilities.

[Jess Phillips]

I feel quite proud to commend this clause about mandatory reporting. For much of my professional life and a huge amount of our political lives, we have been trying to get mandatory reporting across the line, so it is a proud moment. Clauses 45 and 47 and schedule 7 introduce the new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, building on the recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and I will come on to answer the questions that have been asked of me.

The inquiry gathered evidence from many victims and survivors who made disclosures or presented information to a responsible adult with no action being subsequently taken to inform the relevant authorities. A common reason for those failures was the prioritisation of protecting an individual or institution from reputational damage over the safety and wellbeing of children. Many victims who spoke to the inquiry set out the inadequate and negative responses to their disclosures, which meant that they never wanted to talk about their experiences again. The inquiry’s final report recommended that certain individuals in England should be subject to a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse when they become aware of it. Clauses 45 to 47 give effect to such a duty.

When adults undertaking relevant activity with children have reason to believe that child sexual abuse has occurred, either by being told about it by a child or perpetrator or by witnessing the abuse themselves, the new duty requires that they report it promptly to the police or local authority. Clause 45 applies to the new duty, while clauses 46 and 47 define key practical considerations to whom reports should be made and incidents that qualify as giving a reporter sufficient reason to suspect that abuse has occurred.

I will now turn to the amendments in this group, although I do not think some of them will be pressed. Amendment 43 proposes to remove the qualification that, once relevant information has been passed on to the authorities, further duplicate reports are not required. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary. In designing the duty, we have sought to minimise any disruption to well-established reporting processes. Clause 45(7), which this amendment seeks to remove, ensures that a reporter will not have to make a notification under the duty if they are aware that a report has already been made.

Subsection (7) means that, for example, an inexperienced volunteer or newly qualified professional can refer an incident to their organisation’s designated safeguarding lead for an onward notification to be made to the local authority or the police. The duty will be satisfied when a mandated reporter receives confirmation that the report has been made on their behalf, and it remains on them until that point.

I will answer some of the questions that have been asked, specifically those on guidance for the duty and the people within local authorities whom we are talking about. The Government will set out clear guidance on the operation of the duty, but we will also work with regulators and professional standard-setting bodies to ensure that the new duty is clearly communicated ahead of implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 49 to 51 stand part.

[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?

[Jess Phillips]

The term “guardrails” is a really good one; we are trying to put those guardrails in. What I find alarming, not just in the IICSA report but in many serious case reviews—for example, about the murder of Sara Sharif—is that there is sometimes a lack of professional curiosity and/or that some of these things are repeatedly not in place. As somebody who has had teenagers come forward and tell me that they have been gang raped or raped by their boyfriend, or tell me about a date rape situation, I am a bit flabbergasted that professionals do not already know to report that. If that person was a child, I would always have reported it. For me, it is not difficult to manage from a professional perspective, and the reality is that the child knows that the professional is likely to have to report it. In most professional practice, that would still be the case today.

When the hon. Lady asks how professionals will manage the example that she gave, I very much hope that mandatory reporting—I cannot stress enough that I do not want loads of people to go to prison because of mandatory reporting—is used to make a system in children’s safeguarding and working with children that is open and transparent, rather than one where people worry about getting in trouble for the thing that they have done. The training and the guidance that will accompany mandatory reporting will be that guide for professionals, and we will take the time to make sure that the Bill commences only once that guidance is absolutely right.

I find it shocking that people who work with children might need to be told that they have a safeguarding duty if a child reports something such as a date rape to them—it is not the same for adults. I have never worked anywhere where that would not have resulted in a safeguarding referral. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Preventing or deterring a person from complying with duty to report suspected child sex offence

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

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 15.

Clause 54 stand part.

[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 (Seventh sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

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 ---

[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

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 36, page 40, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 33 (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), after the entry for section 41 insert—

‘section 46A (child sexual abuse image-generators)’.”

This amendment excepts the offence about child sexual abuse image-generators from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

[The Chair]

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

--- 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]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady supports the measure, and that there has been a change of heart, as has been pointed out, on the Opposition Front Bench. Although they are not in this group, if she looks at the series of clauses that relate to AI child sexual abuse material, she will see that there is quite a lot in them specifically on the Home Secretary having the power to allow certain AI companies to use such technology to discover child abuse. We do not want to inhibit GCHQ or—I wish I knew the name of some big, lovely, benevolent AI company; I am sure one exists. They might develop materials that would help us, because so much of how we find child sexual abuse material online is through things like the caching of images. An image database that the Government fund is used to identify known child sexual abuse material that can then be searched for online.

I have no technical knowledge of AI; as I stray into this area, I can picture my husband’s eyes rolling firmly into the back of his head, as a man who works in tech. However, I know that on CSAM we always look proactively for—I am already going to say something that might be totally stupid—a certain kind of code and a certain kind of people, based on intelligence, and we have intelligence officers who work undercover in this space to go out and look for them. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.

I give credit to the Internet Watch Foundation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which have campaigned fiercely over the years for these measures to become law. They have been trying to sound the alarm on AI imagery, which uses real children and has real-world consequences. It is very easy for people to think that because an image is not of a real child, it does not cause real problems. Those organisations have been sounding the alarm, so I give credit to them.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Possession of advice or guidance about creating etc CSA images

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 37, page 42, line 11, at end insert—

“(6) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), for paragraph 35A (offences under the Serious Crime Act 2015) substitute—

‘35A An offence under any of the following provisions of the Serious Crime Act 2015—

section 69 (possession of paedophile manual)

section 75A (strangulation or suffocation).’.”

This amendment excepts the offence of possession a paedophile manual from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 20 to 22.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 6.

Clauses 39 and 40 stand part.

Government amendment 13.

Clause 41 stand part.

Government amendment 18.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I also rise to support the clauses. As we have heard, artificial intelligence poses one of the biggest threats to online child safety in a generation. It is too easy for criminals to use AI to generate and distribute sexually explicit content of children.

As the UK’s frontline against child sexual abuse imagery, the IWF was among the first to sound the alarm about AI being used in this way. In October 2023, the IWF revealed the presence of more than 20,000 AI-generated images, 3,000 of which depicted criminal child sexual abuse activities. The creation and distribution of AI-generated child sexual abuse is already an offence under UK law, but AI’s capabilities have far outpaced our laws. My concern is that they will continue to do so. We must continue to keep the law in this area under review.

Offenders can now legally download the tools that they need to generate these images and produce as many as they want offline, with the high level of anonymity that can be achieved through open-source technology. Herein lies a problem: software created for innocent purposes can be appropriated and used for the most grim and hideous purposes. It is all very well making the activity illegal—I support the Government in tackling it—but the Government must also take steps, as indeed they are, to limit, curtail and disrupt criminals’ access to the tools used to carry out their crimes. The Government would do so with regard to any other crime, and it so happens that this is a particularly evil crime that uses cutting-edge and developing technology.

I am concerned about detection in this area. The Minister has been asked to confirm—I am sure she will—that social media companies carrying out lawful activity will not be captured by this law. I do not think it is controversial to say that, in other areas, social media companies have not lived up to their responsibilities to detect crime, support law enforcement agencies in detecting crime and detect criminals who are using their platforms to enhance and enable their own criminal activities.

I hope and am sure that the Government are bringing pressure to bear on social media companies to help with detection of these crimes. It is all very well for social media companies, which are probably exclusively very large, international or multinational companies, to say that they are not the perpetrators of crime, but they do provide platforms and they have huge capabilities to enable detection. I would expect them to step up and put all the resources that they have into detecting or helping law enforcement to detect these vile and horrible crimes.

[Jess Phillips]

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East that there is a real responsibility on our tech giants. The hon. Member for Windsor talked about the Internet Watch Foundation; the basis of its model is a partnership with social media firms whereby they provide it with huge amounts of the data, so they are not without efforts in the space of child abuse detection—they have been partners in it for many years. However, I think that it is uncontroversial to say that more needs to be done. We as policymakers and lawmakers have to keep a constant eye on how things change.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, asked a series of questions. She asked, “What if someone uses electronic services without the knowledge of the service provider?” An individual must have the intention of facilitating child sexual exploitation and abuse to be convicted under this offence. Where an internet service is used without the knowledge or intention of a service provider to carry out child sexual exploitation and abuse, the service provider will not be criminally responsible.

The shadow Minister also asked about the interplay with the Online Safety Act. These criminal offences are designed to ensure that we can better counter the threat of AI-generated CSAM offences. Offences that criminalise the individual user are not in scope of the Online Safety Act. However, the interplay would be in relation to the content created where these measures are in scope. Companies and platforms would then fall under the OSA. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Notification requirements for offence under section 38

Amendment made: 13, in clause 41, page 46, line 7, at end insert—

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

“section 38 (online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse)”.”—(Jess Phillips.)

This amendment excepts the offence of online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I join the Minister in thanking and congratulating those who have campaigned to deliver this important change. Clause 17 rightly introduces a new criminal offence targeting adults who exploit children by coercing or encouraging them to engage in criminal activities. It is designed to address the growing problem of gangs, drug networks and other criminal groups using children to carry out illegal acts such as drug trafficking, theft or violence.

Child criminal exploitation is a scourge on our society —one that ruins lives, fuels violence and allows dangerous criminals to operate in the shadows, free from consequence. For too long, gangs and organised crime groups have preyed on the most vulnerable in our communities, grooming children, exploiting them and coercing them into a life of crime. These criminals do not see children as young people with futures; they see them as disposable assets, easily manipulated, easily threatened, and, in their eyes, easily replaced.

This exploitation is frequently linked to county lines drug trafficking, where children are exploited and coerced into transporting drugs across different regions. According to the Home Office, a key characteristic of county lines operations is

“the exploitation of children, young people and vulnerable adults,”

who are directed to transport, store or safeguard drugs, money or weapons for dealers or users, both locally and across the country.

Child exploitation is linked to a broad range of criminal activities, from local street gangs operating on a postcode basis to highly sophisticated organised crime groups with cross-border operations. The UK Government’s serious and organised crime strategy estimates that organised crime, including county lines drug networks, costs the country £47 billion annually. A single county line can generate as much as £800,000 in revenue each year.

Under the previous Conservative Government, the Home Office launched the county lines programme in 2019 to tackle the harmful drug supply model, which devastates lives through exploitation, coercion and violence. County lines gangs often target the most vulnerable people, manipulating and coercing them into debt and forcing them to transport and sell drugs. A key part of the county lines programme lies in victim support, to ensure that young people and their families have the support they need as they escape the gangs. More than 2,000 county lines were dismantled between June 2022 and December 2023, as the Government hit their target of closing thousands of those criminal networks early.

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

When thousands of county lines were being shut down, can the hon. Member tell me how many people in the same period were sentenced for the modern slavery crimes that they should have been in the closure of all those lines? In fact, was anybody?

[Matt Vickers]

I am sure that is right there in the Minister’s brief—

[Jess Phillips]

It is not.

[Matt Vickers]

The Minister would have a better chance of knowing that than even me. But I will tell her what: one case is one too many, and that is why I am glad to see the Bill, which will bring forward measures to tackle just that.

Between April 2022 and September 2023, more than 4,000 arrests were made, while 4,800 vulnerable people caught up in those vile operations were offered support to turn their lives around. Between April and September 2023, over 700 lines were dismantled, 1,300 arrests made and 1,600 victims were supported.

I would like to mention a story that was included in the Home Office’s press release on the work, which I found inspiring. Liam, not his real name, turned his back on county lines criminality due to Catch22’s work. Liam was referred to Catch22 by social services after a raid at his home found his mother and brother in possession of class A and class B drugs, alongside £3,000 in cash. A subsequent raid found 11 bags of cannabis and weapons. Care workers were concerned that Liam was going down the same path as his family, and referred him to Catch22 for support. Liam was resistant to support at first, but the people at Catch22 were able to build a relationship with him and help him to understand the dangers of getting involved in county lines and drug use, and how to recognise and avoid criminal exploitation.

Liam never missed a session with Catch22, and his attendance and performance at college subsequently improved. He has now moved on to a construction college, knowing that support is there if he is struggling. Liam is just one of hundreds of young people who, since 2022, have been supported by Home Office-funded victim support services, which ensure that vulnerable, hard-to-reach people can, with support, make different choices and turn their backs on a life of criminality.

Action for Children warns that the crisis of child exploitation is worsening, while the absence of a legal definition means that there is no unified data collection across the UK. The available evidence highlights the scale of the issue. In 2023, the national referral mechanism, which identifies potential victims of modern slavery and criminal exploitation, received 7,432 child-related referrals, an increase of 45% since 2021. Criminal exploitation was the most common reason for referral—there were 3,123 cases, with more than 40% linked to county lines activity.

Additionally, between April 2022 and March 2023, 14,420 child in need assessments in England identified criminal exploitation as a risk, up from 10,140 the previous year. Children as young as 11 or 12 years old are being recruited by gangs, forced to transport drugs across the country, and coerced into shoplifting, robbery and even serious violent offences. These children are often threatened, beaten and blackmailed into compliance. Once they are caught in the system, it is incredibly difficult for them to escape. The clause says it is child criminal exploitation if

“the person engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of causing the child to engage in criminal conduct (at any time), and

(b) either—

(i) the child is under the age of 13”.

Can the Minister explain why there is a cut-off at the age of 13?

--- Later in debate ---

The second conclusion is that the existing legislation and criminal processes are “not fit for purpose” in identifying or protecting exploited children and are leading to vulnerable children being failed. Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act which gives a defence in England and Wales against being prosecuted for crimes committed while a victim of modern slavery is too restrictive in its understanding of exploitation and does not always comply with children’s rights. The national referral mechanism does not offer effective protection to children, with delays of up to 18 months for a decision to be issued, in some cases preventing the defence of modern slavery being used in court.

[Jess Phillips]

I want to reassure the hon. Member on the delay, which has been halved since its peak in 2022, since this Government came to office.

[Matt Vickers]

I welcome any progress that the Minister might make in that space, and I look forward to her doing even more with the measures that we are putting through today.

[Jess Phillips]

You’re not putting any through.

[Matt Vickers]

Well, okay, we are not—I take your word for it.

The review also highlighted that, in Scotland, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 requires the Lord Advocate to issue instructions that prosecutors should have a presumption against the prosecution of exploited children. However, that addresses only criminal offences linked to exploitation and does not offer protection at an earlier stage.

We welcome that the Bill makes it absolutely clear that adults who encourage or coerce a child into criminal activity will face serious consequences. They will no longer be able to hide behind children, using them as pawns while evading justice themselves.

The Jay review was also clear that the current approach is far too lenient on exploiters. The number of prosecutions in England and Wales under the Modern Slavery Act remain strikingly low. Only 47 prosecutions were brought under that Act between January and June 2023, resulting in just 24 convictions. That stands in stark contrast to the scale of enforcement activity under the county lines programme, which has led to the arrest of 15,623 adults and children in England and Wales since 2019.

A similar trend is evident in Scotland: between 2020-21 and 2022-23, 116 individuals reported to the Crown court for offences under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act. Of those, 92 cases were escalated to petition or indictment, while only two were prosecuted on summary complaint. In the first half of 2023, 24 individuals were reported for offences under the Act, with 13 of those cases proceeding to petition or indictment.

Those figures highlight a significant gap between the scale of child exploitation-related crime and the relatively low number of prosecutions and convictions. While thousands of individuals have been arrested in connection with county lines activity, very few cases progress to successful prosecution under modern slavery legislation. That suggests a need for stronger enforcement mechanisms, improved evidence gathering and greater legal support to bring more offenders to justice.

The Minister will no doubt be aware that both Catch22 and Action for Children, two leading organisations in youth support and child protection, have welcomed the measures set out in this chapter. They recognise the importance of tackling child criminal exploitation and holding those responsible to account. However, both organisations have emphasised that legislative action alone is not enough and have called on the Government to go further by introducing a comprehensive national strategy to address child criminal exploitation.

Paul Carberry, the chief executive of Action for Children, said that Action for Children

“strongly welcome both the new offence of criminally exploiting children and the new prevention orders in today’s Crime and Policing Bill, which we called for in our Jay Review last year.

These measures will help to protect children across the country who are being preyed upon by criminals and put in danger. But we need to go further. The government’s proposals will only protect children who have already been exploited.

That’s why we need a comprehensive national strategy that ensures that children at risk of criminal exploitation are identified and safeguarded at the earliest opportunity.”

Members will have read the written evidence submitted by Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, a leading children’s rights organisation working to ensure that children can enjoy their rights to protection from trafficking and transnational child sexual exploitation. It campaigns for and supports children everywhere to uphold their rights to live free from abuse and exploitation through an integrated model involving research, policy, training and direct practice. Its vision is to ensure that:

“Children everywhere are free from exploitation, trafficking and modern slavery”.

In regard to clause 17, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking said:

“We welcome the introduction of a specific offence of Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) and the Government’s commitment to tackling this serious child protection issue. Recognising CCE in law is a vital step towards improving protection for children and ensuring that those who exploit children for criminal gain are held to account. However, more remains to be done to ensure that this legislation is as effective as possible. To strengthen this legislation, we call for sentencing parity with the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the introduction of a clear statutory definition of child exploitation, ensuring a unified and robust approach to tackling this abuse.”

What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether the measures set out by Action for Children would be a good step to achieving that? What further steps might she consider? A national strategy could provide a cohesive, long-term framework for tackling the root causes of exploitation, ensuring that law enforcement, social services, education providers and community organisations work together to protect vulnerable children. It would focus on not just prosecution but prevention, early intervention and victim support, ensuring that children caught up in criminal exploitation receive the help they need to escape and rebuild their lives. Has the Minister given serious consideration to those proposals?

Turning to clause 17, any adult who deliberately causes, encourages or manipulates a child into committing a crime, whether through grooming, coercion, threats or exploitation, will face severe legal consequences, including a prison sentence of up to 10 years. This provision aims to crack down on those who prey on vulnerable children, by using them to carry out criminal activities, while evading direct involvement themselves.

Tougher sentences are essential to deterring crime, ensuring justice for victims and reinforcing public confidence in the legal system. When penalties are lenient, criminals may feel emboldened because they believe that the risk of punishment is minimal compared with the potential gains of their illicit activities. A strong sentencing framework sends a clear message that crime will not be tolerated and that those who break the law will face severe consequences.

This is particularly crucial in cases of serious offences, such as child exploitation, drug trafficking and violent crime, where the harm caused to victims and communities is profound and long lasting. Studies have shown that the certainty and severity of punishment play a significant role in influencing criminal behaviour: individuals are less likely to engage in unlawful acts if they know that they will face lengthy prison sentences or substantial financial penalties.

Additionally, tougher sentences serve as a crucial tool for incapacitation, by preventing repeat offenders from causing further harm. For example, in the context of organised crime, longer prison terms disrupt criminal networks and limit their ability to recruit new victims. Beyond deterrence and public safety, stricter sentencing also upholds the principles of justice by ensuring that punishment is proportionate to the severity of the offence. It provides closure to victims and reassures society that the law is being enforced effectively.

Although rehabilitation remains an important component of the criminal justice system, it must be balanced with punitive measures that deter crime and protect the most vulnerable, particularly children, who are often targeted for exploitation. Strengthening sentencing laws is not just about punishment; it is about preventing crime, protecting communities and ensuring that justice is delivered with the seriousness it demands.

But do not just take my word for it. The written evidence submitted by Every Child Protected Against Trafficking raises a key concern about

“the disparity in sentencing between offences prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and those brought under the proposed CCE offence, which risks undermining the severity of this form of exploitation. The proposed sentencing for Child Criminal Exploitation is 10 years, shorter than the penalties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 which are life imprisonment, creating a perverse incentive where those who exploit children for criminality may face a lesser sentence than those prosecuted under modern slavery legislation. This undermines the severity of the offence and risks weakening deterrence against those that systematically exploit children.”

What assessment has been made of the Bill’s potential deterrent effect? Does the Minister believe that the 10-year maximum sentence is sufficient to dissuade criminal networks from exploiting children?

Every Child Protected Against Trafficking also states:

“Enforcement of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as noted by the Home Affairs Committee 2023 report on Human Trafficking, ‘remains woefully inadequate’, with worryingly low levels of law enforcement responses to them in comparison to the number of children who are exploited”.

It also highlights that, as we have already discussed, child trafficking

“remains a low-risk, high-profit crime, and the persistently low prosecution and conviction rates for child trafficking and exploitation offences do not converge with the high numbers of children being referred into the NRM. Data provided by some police forces to the Insight team of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit (MSOIC Unit) showed that in October 2024, police in England and Wales were dealing with at least 2,612 live modern slavery investigations with most of these (59%) primarily involved tackling criminal exploitation. In November, the CPS provided data to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on human trafficking flagged offences cross-referenced with child abuse-flagged offences for England and Wales which showed a decrease in prosecutions and convictions between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, there were 32 prosecutions and 23 convictions, this decreased to 19 prosecutions and 15 convictions in 2022. Prosecutions remained the same in 2023 with 13 convictions.”

I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on her confidence in the effectiveness of the measures in clause 17.

[Jess Phillips]

Does the hon. Member recognise that the reason why this Bill is going on to the statute book is because of the woeful record of criminalising those people? When exactly did his party change its mind on this? Every time I tabled such an amendment, as I did on a number of Bills when the Conservatives were in government, they said “No”.

[Matt Vickers]

I realise that, in some of these very sensitive areas, some people still want to play politics and talk about the history of one party or another. This is a really serious thing with really serious consequences, particularly in my part of the world, so I will leave the Minister to form her own opinions about the ups and downs of it. I support this, and I am keen to see it progress.

Every Child Protected Against Trafficking said:

“Data provided by some police forces to the Insight team of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit…showed that in October 2024, police in England and Wales were dealing with at least 2,612 live modern slavery investigations with most of these (59%) primarily involved tackling criminal exploitation. In November, the CPS provided data to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on human trafficking flagged offences cross-referenced with child abuse-flagged offences for England and Wales which showed a decrease in prosecutions and convictions between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, there were 32 prosecutions and 23 convictions, this decreased to 19 prosecutions and 15 convictions in 2022. Prosecutions remained the same in 2023 with 13 convictions.”

As such, I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on her confidence in the effectiveness of the measures set out in clause 17, particularly on the introduction of a distinct offence of child criminal exploitation.

[Jess Phillips]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Is there something in Standing Orders about repetition and the length of speeches? I think the shadow Minister, perhaps unintentionally, has read out the same page twice. I am just trying to help him out.

[Matt Vickers]

I may have done so inadvertently.

[Jess Phillips]

Okay, he is not purposefully reading out the same page.

[Matt Vickers]

The Minister confused me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Okay.

[Matt Vickers]

Given the historically low number of prosecutions in this area, does the Minister believe that the new offence will provide the necessary legal framework to improve enforcement, to increase accountability for perpetrators, and to ensure that more cases result in successful prosecutions? Furthermore, what additional steps, if any, does she perceive being necessary to support the implementation of the provision and enhance its impact?

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, but not quite as much of a pleasure as listening to something akin to the Gettysburg address from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West.

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

That was short.

[Jack Rankin]

That was the joke. I am sure that my wife, who will be listening in, will be delighted that I will not be home for dinner tonight.

I welcome this legislation and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I understand that it is similar to the Bill brought forward by the previous Conservative Government, so I am glad that we can speak on a cross-party basis in support of making assaults on retail workers and shopkeepers a specific offence in the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East talked about the current legislation, but it is nevertheless an important signal to make it a specific offence.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the previous Government, introduced a retail crime action plan, and a group of retailers made considerable resources available for Project Pegasus to address organised crime. Although I am hearing from my local retailers and local police that there are early signs that those initiatives are beginning to deliver results, it is clear that we need to go much further to achieve the objectives set out in the RCAP. Clauses 14 and 15 are an important step in that direction.

As the Minister said on Tuesday, it is important that we listen to experts in this area. Committee members have been inundated with written evidence, alongside the oral evidence we heard, from people directly affected. It is worth getting some of that on the record, because they are the experts and we should take a steer from them. Paul Gerrard, the campaigns and public affairs director of the Co-op Group, said:

“The Co-op sees every day the violence and threats our colleagues, like other retail workers, face as they serve the communities they live in.

We have long called for a standalone offence of attacking or abusing a shopworker and so we very much welcome the government’s announcement today.

The Co-op will redouble our work with police forces but these measures will undoubtedly, when implemented, keep our shopworkers safer, protect the shops they work in and help the communities both serve.”

That is a thumbs-up from the Co-op.

Simon Roberts, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said something similar:

“There is nothing more important to us than keeping our colleagues and customers safe.”

I am sure we all second that. He went on:

“Alongside our own security measures like colleague-worn cameras, in-store detectives and security barriers, today’s announcement is a vital next step in enabling our police forces to clamp down further.

We fully endorse and support this legislative focus and action on driving down retail crime.”

The Minister and the Government can be confident that these measures are hitting the spot and have the support of experts.

I want to draw out some statistics, particularly from the British Retail Consortium, for which I have a lot of respect. Helen Dickinson, the chief executive, said:

“After relentless campaigning for a specific offence for assaulting retail workers, the voices of the 3 million people working in retail are finally being heard.”

However, she went on to say:

“The impact of retail violence has steadily worsened, with people facing racial abuse, sexual harassment, threatening behaviour, physical assault and threats with weapons, often linked to organised crime.”

That is not something that any of us should tolerate. As well as giving police forces and the justice system more powers, it is important that we in this House speak with one voice to say that that is unacceptable.

The British Retail Consortium’s most recent annual crime survey covers the period from 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024. The BRC represents over 1.1 million employees, and the businesses they work for have a total annual turnover of over £194 billion. Therefore, that survey really is, in a meaningful sense, one that covers the entire industry.

The statistics are awful, to be honest. Violence and abuse have clearly spiralled, rising by over 50% in that year, which was part of an overall rise of 340% since 2020. Indeed, there are now over 2,000 incidents every single day, which is the highest figure ever recorded in that crime survey. Of those 2,000 incidents daily, 124 are violent and 70 include the use of a weapon.

That means that 70 shop workers a day in this country are being threatened with a weapon. We should just think about that; I cannot imagine how I would feel if a member of my family was threatened in that way. It means that 70 people—each one a constituent of one of us—are threatened every single day. Only 10% of incidents of violence and abuse resulted in police attendance, and only 2% resulted in conviction. Only 32% of incidents of violence and abuse were reported to police by retailers, which I am afraid to say speaks to people’s lack of faith in the effectiveness of the current system.

I am sure it is true that Members on both sides of the House hear about these incidents happening on all our high streets through our surgeries, our other contact with constituents and our correspondence. My constituency is a cross-county constituency. Matt Barber, who we heard from last week and who has been quoted a couple of times in today’s debate, is the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, an area that includes about two thirds of my constituency. It covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, which obviously is a relatively prosperous area.

Nevertheless, Matt Barber published a retail crime strategy and one of his top priorities was acknowledging the importance of the issue. He set out a series of actions to tackle shoplifting, retail crime and violence towards shop workers, including bolstering the operational capacity of Thames Valley police through the creation of a business crime team within the force to identify prolific offenders and improve investigation. That action, combined with an increase in the visible presence of police officers and police community support officers in retail spaces through Operation Purchase, is paying some dividends. We have seen an increase of over 90% in charges for shoplifting in the Berkshire part of my constituency.

Acknowledging how difficult and time-consuming it can be for retailers to report retail and shoplifting offences, Mr Barber also rolled out Disc, which is an information-sharing and reporting platform that allows retailers to report and access information about crimes such as shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. The Disc app has been rolled out quite effectively, particularly in Windsor town centre. It is available free of charge for businesses across Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Milton Keynes, and I urge the businesses in the Berkshire part of my constituency to use it. Frankly, any local businesses in that geographical area should use it, because the more retailers that use it and feed in that vital intelligence, the better the policing response will be. That will be even more important once this critical legislation is passed, because it will give police the specific powers to deal with such offences.

The other third of my constituency is in Surrey, where there is a different police and crime commissioner; that is a bit of a ball-ache for a constituency MP, but we plough on. The police and crime commissioner for Surrey, Lisa Townsend, and the chief constable of Surrey police, Tim De Meyer, who we heard from at the evidence session last week, are currently asking members of the Surrey business community to have their say on the impact of retail crime. They have launched a retail crime survey, which is open for responses until 14 April. I urge businesses in Virginia Water and Englefield Green to contribute to that important initiative. I therefore welcome clauses 14 and 15.

I turn to the two amendments tabled by the Opposition. Amendment 29 requires courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime to restrict the offender’s liberty, and new clause 26 imposes a duty to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement, or an electronic monitoring device on people convicted of assaulting retail workers where they have been given a community or suspended sentence. Given what we have heard Committee members, and in written and oral evidence, about the scale and impact of these crimes, ensuring that repeat offenders are given a real deterrent, as put forward in these provisions, seems like an infinitely logical improvement to the Bill. The provisions work hand in glove with the Government to give retail workers the real protections they need.

The BRC’s crime survey calls specifically for dissuasive sentences, as there is an intrinsic link between the police response and the response of the courts. Sentencing is an issue when, I am afraid to say, those involved are repeatedly given light sentences.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister to respond to when she touches on these provisions. We have heard about the cost of crime prevention measures that retailers are incurring, some of which includes hiring private security guards to protect stores. Can the Minister confirm that those workers will also be covered by the legislation, including when they do the very difficult job of trying to apprehend people who are committing offences?

I second what the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said; it is my understanding that the legislation excludes those who work in high street banks. Like other Committee members, I am frequently contacted by constituents who are worried about the loss of banks on the high street. I am concerned that excluding that group of people will result in the loss of yet more face-to-face banking services on our high streets. Presumably, that group has been affected by similar rises in violence and in the number of assaults on staff. For example, Barclays bank reports that in 2024 there were over 3,500 instances of inappropriate customer behaviour against its staff, with more than 90% involving verbal abuse.

I commend the Opposition’s amendments to the Committee, and encourage the Government to consider them so that we can tackle the important crime of assaulting shop workers.

Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I do. At the moment there are huge challenges around housing. People who live in social housing want to live next to someone who treats them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is fair on the people who might be their neighbours and fair on the other people in that list. There is a list for a reason, and the people who misbehave should feel the consequences of doing so.

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

As a constituency Member of Parliament, the shadow Minister will have handled cases where people want their neighbours to move because of the neighbours’ antisocial behaviour. Would he be willing to tell his constituents that those neighbours cannot move because they are at the bottom of the list?

[Matt Vickers]

We are talking more broadly about the powers—

[Matt Vickers]

Well, I will give the Ministers the reasons for it. We are talking more broadly about the powers and sanctions given to help us to tackle antisocial people who create havoc on some estates and cause absolute uproar. No one wants such people to move in next to them. Does the Minister want the empty house next door to be occupied by someone who is committing antisocial behaviour and failing to comply with the responsibility of being a civilised member of society?

[Jess Phillips]

So where are they going to live?

[Matt Vickers]

They are not going to jump the queue ahead of law-abiding citizens who do the right thing. That is what the queue is about, and there is a queue because there is not space.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

What evidence is there that they jump the queue?

[Matt Vickers]

We are saying that they will not get ahead of others. They will join the back of the queue; they will be put down the list. The people who behave, who are responsible, who are fair, and who play by the rules will carry on in their place while others are moved down the list for misbehaving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The fact that housing authorities are made a relevant authority by the Bill is really powerful. We should give all these agencies—the housing associations, the police and the justice system—all the tools, the carrots and the sticks, that they need to manage and induce the correct behaviour. This measure would do that.

[Jess Phillips]

How does the shadow Minister not see that, if my neighbour is an absolute nightmare who engages in antisocial behaviour, I would not report them or want them to get a respect order if I thought that would make it less likely that they could move? I would want them to move, so I would not want them to be at the bottom of the social housing waiting list.

[Matt Vickers]

We have some really good people working in housing authorities across the country who will use all the powers we give them in a meaningful, proportionate and sensible way to get the best possible outcomes for their tenants and communities. This power would be one string on that bow. As we have said, using it would not be mandatory; it would be an option available to them.

I am glad that the Government have said that housing authorities should be a relevant authority that should be able to bring forward orders, including respect orders. That is a really powerful thing, and we should give them all the powers they need and let them get on with the job that they are qualified to do—working hard to deliver for those communities.

[Matt Vickers]

As I have said, this is not a mandatory measure. It is something that housing authorities and local enforcement agencies would be able to use at their discretion, looking at all of the facts surrounding the case, to try to get the best possible outcome for communities and tenants, many of whom are suffering sleepless nights and are miserable in their own home as a result of the behaviour of some awful people. It is right that there are consequences for these people and that we empower the agencies to deal with them as they see fit.

[Jess Phillips]

Have any particular social housing providers or local authorities requested the amendment from the shadow Minister?

[Matt Vickers]

As yet, they have not—I do not know. The Minister is very good at these questions, is she not? She does not like the “name a business” questions, but I suppose we can play it both ways. The reality is that I speak to housing associations that are deeply frustrated about their lack of powers and ability to tackle some of these issues. We would give them and other agencies this power as an option; its use would not be mandatory or stipulated. It is a very sensible thing to do. We should support and empower the authorities and agencies in every way we can.

[Jess Phillips]

The shadow Minister is right; I am very good at those questions. He made a good point about how we need to trust the experts, and I wondered where this amendment had come from if the experts are not the ones calling for it. I have tabled a lot of Opposition amendments in my time, and I was usually working with a team of experts.

[Matt Vickers]

How many housing authorities did we invite to the evidence session?

[Matt Vickers]

We did not invite any to the evidence session. I think the amendment would be welcomed, but I am sure we will hear from the relevant agencies and authorities in due course.

[Jess Phillips]

When tabling amendments to Government Bills in opposition, I never relied only on evidence given in evidence sessions. I believe the shadow Minister has an email address where those people could have lobbied him—it happens to us all the time. Have any housing or antisocial behaviour experts got in touch with him and said this is an appropriate action?

[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.

Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend—I do not wish anyone to think that she has crossed the Floor; she is just my friend—the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) on securing this debate. As has been commented, this topic is very close to my heart, as it is to hers. Her passion and insight came through very clearly as she spoke, and I am grateful to her and everyone who has contributed.

Like her, I have a long-standing interest in these issues. They have been a feature of my work since before I came to this House. In fact, I spent many hours in meetings in Marsham Street as somebody running one of the support services in preparation for the Bill. It is truly something to be celebrated.

When the Modern Slavery Act was passed, it was a hugely significant step. I commend the right hon. Lady on her role in making that happen, alongside the then Home Secretary—now Baroness May of Maidenhead—and all the parliamentarians who have been mentioned. I am not a politician who generally gets carried away about legislation—I care about outcomes, rather than words on a page—but that really was a landmark moment, as much for the message that it sent about our determination to fight modern slavery and exploitation at home and abroad as for the measures that it introduced. The 10th anniversary of the Act gives us an opportunity to reflect on the progress that we have made and the significant challenges that remain.

The UK was once at the forefront of the fight against modern slavery, and I would very much like to see us in that role again. Before I come on to how we make that happen, I will tell a story, because many people have talked about victims in their constituency, and about misconceptions about victims of modern slavery. Like many people, I support many victims of modern slavery in my constituency. I invited a young woman who had been a victim of sexual exploitation and modern slavery to an event that I was taking my son to, because she was feeling particularly down. When she was getting into the car, I warned my son that she was a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. After spending a full day with her, my son said to me, “But Mom, I don’t understand. She was British. I didn’t think you could be a victim of modern slavery if you were British.” There are many misconceptions about who is using our service, and we have to ensure that it is right for all of them.

Victims are waiting too long for conclusive grounds decisions, and we know how detrimental that is to their wellbeing and recovery. That is why I have made clearing the decision-making backlog a personal priority. Our new staff started arriving in December, and I gave them the task of eradicating the backlog by December 2026. In a few short months, we have hired more than 100 new staff, and as of last month, the backlog is half the size it was at its worst in 2022. That is what real effort looks like—not endless talking, not empty commitments, not apathy, but concrete, focused action to deliver results for victims and survivors with compassion and care.

We have taken meaningful steps to decouple the issues of immigration and modern slavery, and I am pleased that modern slavery has returned to my portfolio as the safeguarding Minister. I can confirm that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will repeal the modern slavery provisions linked to the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That will ensure that there is no blanket ban on irregular migrants seeking modern slavery protections. On the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), by no means does that mean that anybody can claim to be a victim of modern slavery. For a start, people cannot refer themselves into our system for modern slavery; only Border Force, local authorities, the Salvation Army and the police can make referrals, and it is up to those agencies to ensure that referrals are made appropriately.

Our manifesto recognised the need to strengthen the response to serious exploitation. The new offence of child criminal exploitation has been included in the Crime and Policing Bill, alongside preventive orders, to provide greater protection to children who are being exploited by criminals. We will also strengthen and streamline domestic labour market enforcement through the creation of the Fair Work Agency, which will provide a more cohesive response. I heard the concerns about the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority moving into that agency. All I can say to hon. Members at the moment is that by no means does the creation of the Fair Work Agency mean that my responsibility as Minister in charge of modern slavery is removed from scrutiny of what happens in the Fair Work Agency. It will just make more work for me in a different Government Department. I understand the concerns on the subject, but the Fair Work Agency will have greater powers and resource to do work that so many people have talked about today. On Monday, I launched new statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains, which provides practical and comprehensive advice for businesses, so that they can go further, faster, in their fight against modern slavery.

We are collaborating with our international partners, too. I recently travelled to Romania to strengthen our joint approach to tackling these awful crimes. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) that while I was there, I met a woman who had been trafficked to my constituency from Romania, via Paris and London, into prostitution. I therefore very much lend my voice to what my hon. Friend said about wishing people would just stop sleeping with prostitutes, because that is exploitation of those women. The stories that they told me in Romania were absolutely harrowing. We are also working on a joint action plan with Vietnam; I will be able to share more information on that in due course.

Those are all important steps that we have tried to take in the eight months we have been in office, but there is so much more to do. To support that, we have developed the modern slavery action plan in collaboration with the non-governmental organisation sector and criminal justice partners. The plan sets out the first steps of our ambitious vision for tackling modern slavery at its root and reforming the whole system. It reinforces our commitment to working across Government, civil society, businesses and international partners to prevent exploitation, protect victims and pursue those who are responsible for such heinous crimes.

To answer the question about whether the NRM is stuck, not working and needs reform, we will soon launch a public consultation on how the Government can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery. If I do nothing else, the reform of the NRM is something that I feel fairly certain I can commit to. It is not working; the system does not work. I say to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands: NRM reform? Yes, please. Let us take part in the consultation; no doubt her Committee will.

On there being a two-tier system of protection for victims—the right hon. Lady also talked about this—that is an absolute reality that I recognise. I have seen that directly from my work. The issue mentioned by more hon. Members than any other is transparency in supply chains and the need to go further. As I have said, we are doing whatever we can in the meantime, in lieu of new legislation, to ensure that we are improving the systems that we have, and making reporting better and more transparent. However, I hear the calls very clearly.

Like the right hon. Lady, I have been waiting for a piece of modern slavery legislation. It has been promised in every speech, whether King’s or Queen’s, but is yet to come. With regard to that, nothing is currently off the table for Members who want to work with the Government on that. I make special mention of the Uyghur Muslims, who have been mentioned time and again in this House, and the real need for us to act robustly, especially as we see other countries advancing in this space, so that our country does not become a flooded area—a place where things can happen that cannot happen in the European Union, or among our partners in the US.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), who is looking great—it seems like we all have to say that—and other Members mentioned Hope for Justice. Hope for Justice is very much part of the core group of those we take advice from in the Department, and I speak to Euan regularly. I have met the victim navigators that many people referred to, and saw the absolute value of them. Many people mentioned devolved decision making. I am completely convinced, as a policymaker, that we should seek to expand devolved decision making as regards children—that is far more preferable.

On the review panel, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said that 70% of decisions to turn down cases are overturned, which somewhat suggests that there is no need for a review, because the review system already overturns the decisions. I am not without sympathy on the point about the review panel; it is not something that has been particularly raised with me by the sector experts I work in concert with, but I will take that away.

As for temporary workers and domestic visas, I am very much alive to the issue of domestic worker visas, and the way that domestic workers have been forced through the NRM potentially unfairly and incorrectly. I am also quite alive to the idea that we have a visa system in our country that allows incredibly rich people to bring domestic workers with them. I have a busy job, and I cook my own dinner. As a feminist, I have a keen eye on the whole system of domestic work servitude.

I think I have answered all the questions asked of me. It pleases me that there is still huge enthusiasm in this place for pushing the issue forward, as there was 10 years ago. That will only ever be rivalled by the enthusiasm in the other place. I am glad that I am not the Minister speaking on this exact subject in the debate there tomorrow, because the Members there are a fierce force. I expect progress to be made on this issue, and I look forward to working with everybody here on all the issues. I hope that people feel that we are open to suggestions, and to working together, as I think we were when we first got there on the legislation.

International Women�s Day

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker�and all the Madam Deputy Speakers who sat through the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing the debate. She said in her comments that she was the 286th female Member of Parliament. Ten years after she was first elected, I became the 311th, so there were only 25 women between the two of us. Yet someone said today that they were the 649th, so the pace accelerated in the following 10 years. Accelerating action is what International Women�s Day is all about this year, so let us keep that up.

International Women�s Day is a moment to celebrate the achievements of women here in the UK and to recognise the enormous contribution they have made across every sector�many Members have done that today. It has shone through in the debate, and it has been a privilege to listen as Members have reflected on the women who have influenced and inspired them. However, it falls to me to do the thing I do every year. I wish I could be entirely uplifting, but while we celebrate the women who have lit up our lives and helped to change the world, we lament the loss of those who did not have the chance.

The statistics show that, on average, a women is killed by a man every three days in the UK, and that one in five homicides are domestic homicides. We cannot allow that to continue; we must act now and be relentless in chasing the change. Many Members have mentioned Raneem�s law, which the Government have brought in to embed specialists in 999 control rooms. I hope that that shows how important the issue of women being killed is to the Government�it drives our actions. I read out the names Raneem Oudeh and her mother Khaola Saleem on the years in which they were killed.

We have also set about putting in place the new domestic abuse protection orders, which are a huge step forward and already means that, where perpetrators breach their orders, they are arrested swiftly and incarcerated. That comes entirely from every domestic homicide review that I have read�they tell me that the consequences can be fatal when a perpetrator breaches an order and we do not respond.

The Government are also seeking to push forward massively on stalking laws. Many women whose names I have read out from the list over the years have died because we did not take stalking seriously. One thing the Government will do is allow people to know the identity of their online stalkers, which is not currently the case. That proposal is based on the case of Nicola Thorp; I am going to call it Nicola�s law. I want to start having laws for women who did not die�for women who did not have to die so that we change the law. That is what we have to get to. We must go further and push harder.

Unfortunately, it is too late to protect those already taken from us. To ensure that we do not forget them and all the women who have suffered due to violence against women and girls�men�s violence against women and girls�I will take this opportunity to read the names collated by the amazing women at the Femicide Census. They collate the list of the women and girls aged 14 and above, and this year four children are included on the list, who have allegedly been killed or are known to have been killed by men in the past year.

This is the 10th year I have read this list. I do it now for the first time from the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons. I do it in front of and to honour the families of these women and the women who have appeared on the list in the past. Last year, I said that I felt tired, angry and weary and that I was sick of the failures. But as I stand here today, on the Front Bench, placed here by a Prime Minister inspired to action, who mentioned the reading of the list in the first ever speech he made from this Dispatch Box as the Prime Minister, alongside a Home Secretary and a flight of brilliant Ministers who are totally dedicated to this, I feel hopeful. The women whose names I am about to read out left us breadcrumbs�they left us clues as to why they died. We cannot stand and say any more that lessons will be learned. What I promise is that I will actually learn the lessons.

Here is the list this year: Zhe Wang; Pauline Sweeney; Carol Matthews; Ursula Uhlemann; Tiffany Render; Frances Dwyer; Ruth Baker; Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche; Samantha Mickleburgh; Rachel McDaid; Lisa Welford; Karen O�Leary; Sonia Parker; Tarnjeet Riaz; Anita Mukhey; Bhajan Kaur; Kathryn Parton; Emma Finch; Margaret Parker; Amie Gray; Maria Nugara; Patsy Aust; Veronica Chinyanga; Delia Haxworth; Joanne Ward; Lauren Evans; Maxine Clark; Scarlett Vickers; Sophie Evans; Joanne Samak; Carol Hunt; Louise Hunt; Hannah Hunt; Jenny Sharp; Alana Odysseos; Laura Robson; Kulsuma Akter; Rebecca Simkin; Olivia Wood; Courtney Mitchell; Nina Denisova; Alberta Obinim; Stephanie Marie; Sophie Watson; Vicki Thomas; Eve McIntyre; Montserrat Martorell; Cher Maximen; Brodie MacGregor; Zanele Sibanda; Bryonie Gawith and her children, Oscar Birtle and Aubree Birtle; Davinia Graham; Barbara Nomakhosi; Christine Everett-Hickson; Juliana Prosper and her children, Giselle and Kyle Prosper; Rachel Simpson; Mary Ward; Luka Bennett-Smith; Anita Rose; Mashal Ilyas; Rhiannon Skye Whyte; Catherine Flynn; Sandie Butler; Rita Fleming; Cheryl McKenna; Carol James; Phoenix Spencer-Horn; Harshita Brella; Alana Armstrong; Margaret Cunningham; Kristine Sparane; Margaret Hanson; Karen Cummings; Astra Sirapina; Mariann Borocz; Gemma Devonish; Joanne Pearson; Teohna Grant; Heather Newton; June Henty; Leila Young; Julie Buckley; Jamelatu Tsiwah; Dianne Cleary; Claire Chick; Margaret Worby; Carmen Coulson; Rita Lambourne; Megan Hughes; Lisa Smith; Ana Maria Murariu; Leanne Williams; and two women from Birmingham whose names have not yet been confirmed. Finally, though the suspects have not been identified, I would like to honour the lives of Dora Leese and Christine Jefferies.

In the last year, Sharon Holland, Chloe Holland�s mother, asked if Chloe could be remembered, because her name would never have been read out on this list. I ask that we remember Chloe, and that alongside her we remember the list of women who died from suicide, or in unclear, sinister and hidden circumstances where we know there was a history of domestic abuse or sexual violence. Those women�s names will not make it on to this list, because nobody has ever been held accountable for their deaths. Today I promise that we are working on these hidden homicides. They deserve better. They deserve justice.

I will finish by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate. I note in this year�s debate the number of people who talked about women who had been harmed in their constituency, and the calls for action and change have been incredibly heartening. We have heard about making work pay, keeping our streets safe, and women who have fought tirelessly to embed true equality into our everyday lives. This a fight that demands the very best from all of us, and we must rise to the occasion. Under this Government, this issue will get the attention that it deserves. We will keep honouring and celebrating women as we build a society in which they are respected and protected, and we will back up our words with action as we seek real and lasting change, undeterred by those who sit on the sidelines while the list of names grows longer.

Church of England: Safeguarding

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

First, I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I give special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for the passionate and detailed manner in which he took the House through the issues. The stories of victims that we have heard today are harrowing, not just in the facts of their abuse, but in the ignorance and the shutdown described by my hon. Friend and by Mr X’s constituency MP, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), which I suppose is the issue that compounds it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) talked about this being an issue faced in many institutions. The Church of England or any other religious institution is not alone in having faced safeguarding issues and problems over the years, but it is how we react to that safeguarding challenge and what we put in place that matters. It is not for the Government to tell the Church of England how to have its processes—the Synod is there to do that. When my hon. Friend was listing institutions that had faced safeguarding issues, one that was not listed was this institution. I recall—many of the people here today were here then—that one of the things we did here, which people like me fought for, was to put in an independent process to oversee issues of sexual abuse and violence within this institution.

Safeguarding is rightly the responsibility of all, and I am grateful for the important contributions made today. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Government’s approach to safeguarding. Let me be clear that I cannot tell the Synod what it has to do, but I condemn the acts of psychological, emotional and physical and sexual abuse against both adults and children, including where those occur in religious settings or contexts. As with every case of abuse, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims and survivors.

[Ms Billington]

I understand what the Minister is saying. However, we have a situation where the institution is compounding that abuse, by the way that it is protecting the people in power or the people in power are protecting the perpetrators, thereby further hurting victims. I understand that the Minister cannot tell the Church of England how to conduct its safeguarding. However, will she please acknowledge that its failure to conduct proper safeguarding is compounding that abuse and is something that the Church of England has a duty to correct?

[Jess Phillips]

I gladly agree with my hon. Friend. What I know from years working on the frontline with victims of historical and current abuses—it is usually sexual abuse that I am talking about in this particular instance—is that victims tell me that what happened to them was horrendous, but what continued to happen to them because of failures by institutions to act was worse. It is a longer, more traumatic experience.

Whether this involves our court systems, our policing systems, our local authorities or—as in this instance—the Church, we have opportunities, as those who take a role in safeguarding, to do the right thing. It is not always easy to do the right thing straightaway and to make everything perfect, and I do not think anyone is asking for that. However, it is important for the processes that are put in place—and we have to do this as a nation, let alone what the Church has to do—to ensure that even if the outcome is not perfect, for justice is not always served, the procedure that people go through does not cause further harm. That should be the bare minimum that victims can expect. We are committed to tackling all forms of abuse against children wherever they occur, including the despicable crime of child sexual abuse.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to implementing the IICSA recommendations, notably the introduction of mandatory reporting, which will go a long way towards tackling abuse in religious settings. Does the Minister agree, particularly in the context of more independent safeguarding processes, that as we work to improve safeguarding in the Church of England we should also take the opportunity to bolster safeguarding within smaller religious groups, especially high-control religious groups like the one in which I grew up, in respect of which public awareness of the scale of failings is very low?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. I will go on to talk about mandatory reporting, but the fundamental point is that, big or small, rich or poor, organisations that are in a position of power and responsibility and are working with children or vulnerable adults have a safeguarding responsibility. I would hope that bigger institutions, whether they are Governments or the larger religious institutions, want always to lead by example in this regard.

As has been mentioned, the Government have made a commitment to introduce a mandatory duty for those working with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making it a clear legal requirement for anyone in regulated activity—which will include the Church—relating to children in England to report to the police or the local authority if they are made aware that a child is being sexually abused. We are pleased that that commitment was introduced last week in the Crime and Policing Bill. We are also committed to making grooming an aggravating factor, toughening up sentencing and setting up a new victims and survivors panel, and we will set out a clear timeline for taking forward the 20 recommendations of the final IICSA report on child sexual abuse. As a nation, we also received recommendations from Professor Alexis Jay.

We like to conduct reviews. Institutions and Governments like to conduct reviews. We will not always agree with every recommendation, or even be able to implement every recommendation, but what is the point of constantly conducting reviews and just saying, “Lessons will be learned”? Lessons must actually be learned, and that must be followed by actions. It would seem from the litany of reviews detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland that a great many actions could be being undertaken currently.

The Government are committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from harm in all settings. There are already many legal powers in place to protect them, and local authorities have a legal duty to investigate when they believe that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. Keeping children safe in all settings is our priority, and we are driving forward important work including updating guidance for staff and parents regarding out-of-school settings and strengthening guidance for local authorities on their legal powers to intervene, and the upcoming call for evidence will inform long-term proposals for safeguarding reform.

The Government have introduced the landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which puts protecting children at its heart, in addition to other measures such as the 2023 update of the Government’s “Working together to safeguard children” statutory guidance. The Bill will improve information sharing across and within agencies, strengthening the role of education in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and will require the implementation of multi-agency child protection teams so that children are better protected in both school and out-of-school settings.

We will not let up in our efforts to safeguard and protect children and adults. It is crucial that we continue to step up prevention efforts, drive up reporting, bring more offenders to justice, and ensure that victims and survivors receive better care and support.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for what she is saying. Given that it has been cited that there could be a technical reason with the Charity Commission as to the roles of trustees within the structures of cathedrals, will she meet representatives of the Charity Commission to ensure that any impediment is worked through and that, if necessary, this place legislates to remove that impediment?

[Jess Phillips]

I thought my hon. Friend was going to ask me a very technical question about the trustees of cathedrals; characteristically, I would have stood up and said I do not know the answer. I can absolutely commit to meeting representatives of the Charity Commission to talk to them about what the impediment in this instance appears to be, because it almost certainly has read across for safeguarding in other institutions. If there is in fact an impediment, as the Minister for Safeguarding, I would be keen to find out what the impediment is.

There should be no status that is protected from scrutiny, and the culture of silence—through wilful ignorance or, worse, malign intent—to safeguard reputations above children must end wherever we see it. Lamenting and repenting is all well and good, but what my mom used to say to me is, “Sorry is just a word you say. Changing your behaviour proves to me that you are sorry.” We owe a debt to the victims who come forward about any institutional abuse. We owe them more than lamenting and repenting. We owe them change.

Question put and agreed to.