Crime and Policing Bill
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsTuesday 17th June 2025
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 June 2025 - (17 Jun 2025)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 53—Arranging or facilitating begging for gain.
Government new clause 54—Proving an offence under section 38.
Government new clause 55—Special measures for witnesses.
Government new clause 56—Causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose.
Government new clause 57—Secretary of State guidance.
Government new clause 58—Department of Justice guidance.
Government new clause 59—Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases.
Government new clause 60—Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers.
Government new clause 61—Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers.
Government new clause 62—Interpretation of sections (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers) and (Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers).
Government new clause 63—Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices.
Government new clause 64—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): supplementary.
Government new clause 65—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): interpretation.
Government new clause 66—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): confidential information.
Government new clause 67—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): code of practice.
Government new clause 68—Extraction of online information: ports and border security.
Government new clause 69—Extraction of online information following agreement etc.
Government new clause 70—Lawful interception of communications.
Government new clause 71—Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons.
Government new clause 72—Meaning of “law enforcement employer”.
Government new clause 73—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to Secretary of State.
Government new clause 74—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 75—Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists.
Government new clause 76—Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 77—Interpretation of sections (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons) to (Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer).
Government new clause 78—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Government new clause 79—Consequential amendments.
Government new clause 80—Power to give directions to critical police undertakings.
Government new clause 81—Ports and border security: retention and copying of articles.
Government new clause 82—Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted.
Government new schedule 1—Amendments to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Government new schedule 2—Confiscation orders: Scotland.
Government new schedule 3—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Amendment 157, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “The Anti-social” and insert—
“Subject to a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014 being conducted and completed by the Secretary of State within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Anti-social”.
Amendment 167, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 168, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9A) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
Amendment 169, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Amendment 170, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
(1) A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 171, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates' court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).””
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Amendment 158, in clause 2, page 9, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must conduct a full consultation exercise.”
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 17, line 23, insert—
“(3) To facilitate the ability of the Police, under the provisions of section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, as amended by subsection (1), to seize e-scooters or e-bikes that have been used in a manner which has caused alarm, distress or annoyance, the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of electric bikes and electric scooters.
(4) The consultation must consider the merits of—
(a) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and
(b) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”
Amendment 172, in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”
Amendment 173, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued about the enforcement of section 33 offences must ensure that, where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from the offence.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
Amendment 174, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) The consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State must include an examination of establishing a penalty point fine to those found convicted of an offence under sections 33 or 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on establishing a system for those who fly tip or leave litter to receive penalty points on their driving licence.
Amendment 175, in clause 25, page 30, line 24, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
Government amendments 24 to 33.
Amendment 176, in clause 35, page 50, line 38, at end insert—
“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender. The community order must include a tag, a ban, or a curfew.”
This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.
Government amendment 34.
Amendment 4, in clause 38, page 51, line 29, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Amendment 7, page 51, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the requirement that for an offence of child criminal exploitation to be committed, the perpetrator did not reasonably believe that the child was aged 18 or over.
Government amendment 35.
Amendment 5, in clause 38, page 51, line 37, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes. It is consequential on Amendment 4.
Amendment 6, page 52, line 2, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) activity that is undertaken in order to facilitate or enable an offence under the law of England and Wales, or.”
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Government amendments 36 to 49.
Amendment 8, in clause 53, page 61, line 5, after “(A)” insert ““aged 18 or over”.
This amendment would ensure children cannot commit an offence of cuckooing.
Government amendments 50 to 66.
Government motion to transfer subsection (4) of clause 59.
Government amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 177, in clause 64, page 73, line 24, at end insert—
“4A) For the purpose of this section—
“Child” means a person under the age of 18.
“Grooming” means meeting or communicating (in person or online) with a child and or their network (on one or more occasion) with a view to intentionally arrange or facilitate child sexual abuse (in person or online) for an act including themselves or others.”
This amendment would introduce a legal definition of grooming.
Amendment 178, page 74, line 31, at end insert—
“70B Group-based sexual grooming of a child
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a court is considering the seriousness of a specified child sex offences,
(b) the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming, and
(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed.
(2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming as an aggravated factor, and
(b) must state in court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) An offence is “aggravated by group-based grooming” if—
(a) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, the offender, who was involved in group-based grooming, or
(b) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, a person other than the offender grooming a person under the age of 18 and the offender knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know that said person was participating, or facilitating group-based grooming, or
(c) the offender intentionally arranges or facilitates something that the offender intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in order to participate in group-based grooming.
(4) In this section “specified child sex offence” means—
(a) an offence within any of subsections (5) to (7), or
(b) an inchoate offence in relation to any such offence.
(5) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),
(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),
(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),
(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child 25 sex offences),
(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),
(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),
(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or
(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children).
(6) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),
(b) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),
(c) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or
(d) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism), and the victim or intended victim was under the age of 18.
(7) An offence is within this subsection if it is an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “group-based grooming” is defined as a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims who are under 18, or could reasonably be expected to be under 18.”
This amendment would introduce a specific aggravating factor in sentencing for those who participate in, or facilitate, group-based sexual offending.
Amendment 159, in clause 65, page 74, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) An officer may seek independent judicial authorisation to engage in conduct which is for the purpose of obtaining data from the person.
(2A) Authorised conduct may consist of an officer—
(a) scanning the information stored on the device using technology approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of ascertaining whether information stored on an electronic device includes child sexual abuse images,
(b) requiring the person to permit the scan, and
(c) requiring the person to take such steps as appear necessary to allow the scan to be performed.”
This amendment subjects any searches of electronic devices to prior authorisation by a judge.
Amendment 179, in clause 66, page 75, line 16, 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.
Amendment 3, page 75, line 31, at end insert—
“(2) the duty under subsection (1) applies to—
(a) any person undertaking work for the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination on either a paid or voluntary basis,
(b) any clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination, notwithstanding any canonical law regarding the seal of confession, and
(c) any person undertaking work on either a paid or voluntary basis, or holding a leadership position, within the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh faiths, or any other religion, faith or belief system.”
This amendment would ensure that the duty to report suspected child sex abuse covered everyone working for the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church whether paid or on a voluntary basis, including clergy, as well as all other faith groups. Reports received by clergy through confession would not be exempt from the duty to report.
Amendment 10, page 76, line 28, at end insert—
“(10) A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.
(11) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that a failure to report a suspected child sex offence should be a criminal offence.
Amendment 22, page 77, line 13, at end insert
“or
(c) an activity involving a “position of trust” as defined in sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that any person working in a position of trust as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be designated a mandatory reporter.
Amendment 11, in clause 68, page 78, line 19, at end insert—
“(7) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed.
(8) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.
(9) A failure to comply with the duty under subsection (1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (7) or subsection (8).”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.
Government amendment 70.
Amendment 9, in clause 80, page 84, line 22, at end insert—
“(b) if the name change is by deed poll, 7 days prior to submitting an application for change of name (whichever is earlier), or”.
This amendment would require relevant sex offenders to notify the police of an intention to change a name 7 days before making an application to do so by deed poll.
Amendment 180, page 85, line 26, at end insert—
“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.
Amendment 181, in clause 81, page 86, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence.
Amendment 182, in clause 82, page 88, line 25, at end insert—
“(9) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine at Level 5 of the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender does not notify police if they are entering a premises where children are presented.
Government amendments 71 to 73.
Amendment 19, in clause 94, page 115, line 25, at end insert
“, or
(c) the person does so being reckless as to whether another person will be injured, aggrieved or annoyed.”
This amendment would expand the offence for administering harmful substances, including by spiking, to include those who do so being reckless.
Amendment 20, in clause 95, page 116, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) In determining a sentence for an offence committed under this section, the Court is to treat encouragement or assistance of self-harm, when preceded by a history of abuse perpetrated against the victim/other person by D, as an aggravating factor.
(6B) The criminal liability for D, when the other person mentioned in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) commits suicide, and where D has subjected that person to physical, psychiatric or psychological harm, is the offence of murder.”
This amendment treats encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm when preceded by a history of abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing with explicit recognition of murder as the criminal liability for perpetrators who cause serious physical, psychiatric, or psychological harm that directly results in, or significantly contributes to, suicide.
Government amendments 74 to 76.
Amendment 14, in clause 102, page 124, line 16, leave out from subsection (1) to “where” in line 29 and insert—
“(1) A person who possesses a SIM farm without good reason or lawful authority commits an offence. For the meaning of ‘SIM farm’, see section 104.
(2) In subsection (1) the reference to a good reason for possessing a SIM farm includes in particular possessing it for a purpose connected with—
(a) providing broadcasting services,
(b) operating or maintaining a public transport service,
(c) operating or maintaining an electronic communications network (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003),
(d) tracking freight or monitoring it in any other way, or
(e) providing or supporting an internet access service or the conveyance of signals (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003).
This subsection does not limit subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1),”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they possessed a SIM farm without a good reason, such as for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority.
Amendment 15, in clause 103, page 124, line 37, leave out from subsection (1) to “prove” on page 125, line 2, and insert—
“(1) A person who supplies a SIM farm to another person commits an offence unless subsection (2) applies.
(2) It is not an offence for a person to supply a SIM farm under this section provided the person (‘the supplier’) can”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they supplied a SIM farm without taking reasonable steps to confirm that the person receiving the SIM farm would have a good reason, including for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority to possess the SIM farm.
Amendment 16, in clause 104, page 125, line 34, after “interchangeably,” insert “and designed primarily” and line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a device is not a SIM farm if it uses five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably for the purposes of provided data only services or internet access services or conveyance services.”
This amendment would amend the meaning of “SIM farm” to cover only devices that are primarily used for calls and text messages and would exclude devices primarily used for data connectivity such as Bonded Cellular Devices used by broadcasters.
Amendment 164, page 128, line 5, leave out clause 108.
Amendment 184, in clause 108, page 128, line 10, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
“(2) No offence is committed under this section where a person wears or otherwise uses the item for—”
This amendment would ensure that Clause 108 does not apply to people wearing the hijab, niqab or wearing a mask for health reasons.
Amendment 185, page 128, line 25, at end insert—
“(6) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the equality impact of the provisions of Clause 108.
Amendment 165, page 128, line 26, leave out clause 109.
Amendment 166, page 129, line 28, leave out clause 110.
Government amendments 77 to 86.
Amendment 161, page 131, line 29, leave out clause 114.
This amendment would delete Clause 114 which would place restrictions on the right to protest near places of worship.
Amendment 160, in clause 115, page 133, line 12, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to imposing conditions under either Section 12 or 14, the senior officer of the Police Force in question must confirm that live facial recognition will not be in use, unless a new code of practice for the use of live facial recognition surveillance in public spaces in England and Wales had previously been presented to, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 21, in clause 120, page 140, line 37, at end insert—
“(8) The authorised persons listed in Clause 71A may not use the information referenced in subsection (1) for the purposes of biometric searches using facial recognition technology”
Government amendment 87.
Amendment 162, page 148, line 1, leave out clause 126.
Amendment 163, in clause 126, page 148, line 13, at end insert—
“(3) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the human rights and equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay the report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
Government amendments 88 to 91.
Amendment 183, in clause 141, page 168, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“(7A) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7B) An assessment must be taken of the respondent before the conclusion of a youth diversion order to determine if they continue to hold extremist views or pose a terror threat.
(7C) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.
(7D) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.
(7E) If the respondent is assessed as holding extremist views or as a terror threat the youth offending team or a chief officer of police must apply to an appropriate court for the youth offending order to be extended up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7F) All provisions, prohibitions and requirements of a youth diversion order remain in effect until the respondent has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing a terror threat.”
This amendment would give the police the ability to apply for youth diversion orders in cases of youth extremism and terror risks. The diversion orders would conclude automatically after a maximum of twelve months without an assessment as to whether the individual remained a terror risk or extremist.
Government amendments 92 to 101, and 134 to 151.
Amendment 23, in schedule 9, page 229, line 15, at end insert—
“(11) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for summary offences) does not apply to an offence under subsection (1).”
This amendment allows the offence of taking or recording intimate photograph or film to be tried by a Magistrates’ Court at any time by disapplying the six-month time limit in s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Government amendments 152 to 156 and 102 to 133.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I speak to the key Government amendments tabled on Report, I quickly remind the House why the Government have brought forward this Bill. It is a vital part of our safer streets mission, and contains a host of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, retail and knife crime, and the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and to restore confidence and trust in policing.
It is worth reminding the House that on the previous Government’s watch, shoplifting soared to record-high levels; there was a 70% increase in their last two years in office alone. Street theft was rapidly rising; it was up by almost 60% in just the last two years. Antisocial behaviour was rampant in our towns and cities, with 1 million incidents last year. In the year to June 2024, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 25% of people perceived antisocial behaviour to be a fairly or very big problem in their area. That is the highest level since at least March 2013, over a decade ago. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels. The British Retail Consortium said that incidents of violence and abuse against shop workers stood at more than 2,000 a day in ’23-24—up by almost 50% on the previous year, and nearly treble the pre-pandemic figures from 2019 to 2020.
Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, I will update the House on the audit the Government commissioned from Baroness Casey on child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, and on the action we are taking to tackle this vile crime—to put perpetrators behind bars and to provide the innocent victims of those crimes with support and justice.
The House will be aware that on Friday seven men were found guilty of committing the most horrendous crimes in Rochdale between 2000 and 2006. They were convicted of treating teenage girls as sex slaves, repeatedly raping them in filthy flats, alleyways and warehouses. The perpetrators included taxi drivers and market traders of Pakistani heritage, and it has taken 20 years to bring them to justice. I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of the women who told their stories and fought for justice for all those years. They should never have been let down for so long.
The sexual exploitation of children by grooming gangs is one of the most horrific crimes. Children as young as 10, plied with drugs and alcohol, were brutally raped by gangs of men and disgracefully let down again and again by the authorities that were meant to protect them and keep them safe. These despicable crimes have caused the most unimaginable harm to victims and survivors throughout their lives and are a stain on our society.
Five months ago, I told the House that our most important task was to stop perpetrators and put them behind bars. I can report that that work is accelerating—arrests and investigations are increasing. I asked police forces in January to identify cases involving grooming and child sexual exploitation allegations that had been closed with no further action. More than 800 cases have now been identified for formal review, and I expect that figure to rise above 1,000 in the coming weeks.
Let me be clear: perpetrators of these vile crimes should be off our streets, behind bars, paying the price for what they have done. Further rapid action is also under way to implement recommendations of past inquiries and reviews, including the seven-year independent inquiry into child abuse—recommendations that have sat on the shelf for too long. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing the long-overdue mandatory reporting duty, which I called for more than 10 years ago, as well as aggravated offences for grooming offenders so that their sentences match the severity of their crimes.
Earlier this year, I also commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to undertake a rapid national audit of the nature, scale and characteristics of gang-based exploitation. I specifically asked her to look at the issue of ethnicity and the cultural and social drivers of this type of offending—analysis that previously had never been done despite years of concerns being raised. I asked her to advise us on what further reviews, investigations and actions would be needed to address the current and historical failures that she found.
I told Parliament in January that I expected Baroness Casey to deliver the same kind of impactful and no-holds-barred report that she produced on Rotherham in 2015, so that we never shy away from the reality of these terrible crimes. I am grateful that Louise and her team have done exactly that, conducting a hugely wide-ranging assessment in just four months. The findings of her audit are damning. At its heart, she identifies a deep-rooted failure to treat children as children, and a continued failure to protect children and teenage girls from rape, exploitation and serious violence and from the scars that last a lifetime. She finds too much fragmentation in the authorities’ response, too little sharing of information, too much reliance on flawed data, too much denial, too little justice, too many criminals getting off and too many victims being let down.
The audit describes victims as young as 10—often those in care or children with learning or physical disabilities—being singled out for grooming precisely because of their vulnerability; perpetrators still walking free because no one joined the dots or because the law ended up protecting them instead of the victims they had exploited; and deep-rooted institutional failures, stretching back decades, where organisations that should have protected children and punished offenders looked the other way. Baroness Casey found that
“blindness, ignorance, prejudice, defensiveness and even good but misdirected intentions”
all played a part in that collective failure.
On the key issues of ethnicity that I asked Baroness Casey to examine, she has found continued failure to gather proper robust national data, despite concerns being raised going back many years. In the local data examined from three police forces, the audit identifies clear evidence of over-representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani-heritage men. Baroness Casey refers to
“examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist or raising community tensions”.
These findings are deeply disturbing, but most disturbing of all, as Baroness Casey makes clear, is the fact that too many of them are not new. As her audit sets out, there have been 15 years of reports, reviews, inquiries and investigations into the appalling rapes, exploitation and violent crimes against children—detailed over 17 pages of her report—but too little has changed. We have lost more than a decade. That must end now. Baroness Casey sets out 12 recommendations for change, and we will take action on all of them immediately, because we cannot afford more wasted years.
We will introduce new laws to protect children and support victims so that they stop being blamed for the appalling crimes committed against them; new major police operations to pursue perpetrators and put them behind bars; a new national inquiry to direct local investigations and hold institutions to account for past failures; new ethnicity data and research, so that we face up to the facts on exploitation and abuse; new action across children’s social services and other agencies to identify children at risk; and further action to support child victims and tackle new forms of exploitation and abuse online. Taken together, this will mark the biggest programme of work ever pursued to root out the scourge of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation.
Those vile perpetrators who have grown used to the authorities looking the other way must have no place to hide, so let me spell out the next steps that we are announcing today. Baroness Casey’s first recommendation is that we must see children as children. She concludes that too many grooming cases have been dropped or downgraded from rape to lesser charges because a 13 to 15-year-old is perceived to have been in love with or consented to sex with the perpetrator, so we will change the law to ensure that adults who engage in penetrative sex with a child under 16 face the most serious charge of rape, and we will work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure that there are safeguards for consensual teenage relationships. We will change the law so that those convicted for child prostitution offences while their rapists got off scot-free will have their convictions disregarded and their criminal records expunged.
Baroness Casey’s next recommendation is a national criminal investigation. As I have set out, arrests and investigations are rising, but the audit recommends that we go further, so I can announce that the police will launch a new national criminal operation into grooming gangs, overseen by the National Crime Agency. It will bring together for the first time all arms of the policing response and develop a rigorous new national operating model that all forces across the country will be able to adopt, ensuring that grooming gangs are always treated as serious and organised crime, and so that rapists who groom children—whether their crimes were committed decades ago or are still being committed today—can end up behind bars.
Alongside justice, there must also be accountability and action. We have begun implementing the recommendations from past inquiries, including Professor Jay’s independent inquiry, and we have said that further inquiries are needed to get accountability in local areas. I told the House in January that I would undertake further work on how to ensure that those inquiries could get the evidence that they needed to properly hold institutions to account. We have sought responses from local councils, too. We asked Baroness Casey to review those responses, as well as the arrangements and powers used in past investigations and inquiries, and to consider the best means of getting to the truth. Her report concludes that further local investigations are needed, but they should be directed and overseen by a national commission with statutory inquiry powers. We agree, and we will set up a national inquiry to that effect.
Baroness Casey is not recommending another overarching inquiry of the kind conducted by Professor Alexis Jay. She recommends that the inquiry be time-limited, and its purpose must be to challenge what the audit describes as continued denial, resistance and legal wrangling among local agencies. We will set out further details on the national inquiry in due course.
I warned in January that the data collection we inherited from the previous Government on ethnicity was completely inadequate; the data was collected on only 37% of suspects. Baroness Casey’s audit confirms that ethnicity data is not recorded for two thirds of grooming gang perpetrators, and that the data is
“not good enough to support any statements about the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders at the national level.”
I agree with that conclusion. Frankly, it is ridiculous and helps no one that this basic information is not collected, especially as there have been warnings and recommendations stretching back 13 years about the woefully inadequate data on perpetrators, which prevents patterns of crime from being understood and tackled.
The immediate changes to police recording practices that I announced in January are starting to improve the data, but we need to go much further. Baroness Casey’s audit examined local data in three police force areas—Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire —where high-profile cases involving Pakistani-heritage men have long been investigated and reported. She found there that the suspects of group-based child sexual offences were disproportionately likely to be Asian men. She also found indications of disproportionality in serious case reviews.
Although much more robust national data is needed, we cannot and must not shy away from those findings. As Baroness Casey says,
“ignoring the issues, not examining and exposing them to the light, allows the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities”.
The vast majority of people in our British Asian and Pakistani-heritage communities continue to be appalled by these terrible crimes, and agree that the criminal minority of sick predators and perpetrators in every community must be dealt with robustly by criminal law.
Baroness Casey’s review also identifies prosecutions and investigations into perpetrators who are white British, European, African or middle eastern, just as Alexis Jay’s inquiry concluded that all ethnicities and communities were involved in appalling child abuse crimes. So that there is accurate information to help tackle serious crimes, we will, for the first time, make it a formal requirement to collect ethnicity and nationality data in all cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. We will also commission new research on the cultural and social drivers of child sexual exploitation, misogyny and violence against women and girls, as Baroness Casey has recommended.
The audit’s final group of recommendations is about the continued failure of agencies that should be keeping children safe to share vital information or act on clear signs of risk. Worryingly, the audit finds that although the number of reports to the police of child sexual abuse and exploitation has gone up, the number of child sexual abuse cases identified for protection plans by local children’s services has fallen to its lowest ever, but no one has been curious about why that is. The audit also details an abysmal failure to respond to 15 years of recommendations and warnings about the failings of inter-agency co-operation. We will act at pace to deliver Baroness Casey’s recommendations for mandatory information-sharing between agencies, and for unique reference numbers for children, building on work already being taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will also work at pace to close loopholes in taxi licensing laws.
I want to respond to three other important issues identified by Baroness Casey in her report, but on which she has not made specific recommendations. On support for victims, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will fund additional training for mental health staff in schools on identifying and supporting children and young people who have experienced trauma, exploitation and abuse. Baroness Casey reports that she came across cases involving suspects who were asylum seekers. We have asked her team to provide all the evidence they found to the Home Office, so that immigration enforcement can immediately pursue individual cases with the police. Let me make it clear that those who groom children or commit sexual offences will not be granted asylum in the UK, and we will do everything in our power to remove them. I do not believe that the law we have inherited is strong enough, so we are bringing forward a change to the law, so that anyone convicted of sexual offences is excluded from the asylum system and denied refugee status. We have already increased the removal of foreign national offenders by 14% since the election, and we are drawing up new arrangements to identify and remove those who have committed a much wider range of offences.
Finally, Baroness Casey describes ways in which patterns of grooming gang child sexual exploitation are changing, and evidence that rape and sexual exploitation are taking place in street gangs and drug gangs who combine criminal and sexual exploitation. I do not believe that this kind of exploitation has been investigated sufficiently. The report also describes sexual exploitation in modern slavery and trafficking cases. Most significantly of all, it describes the huge increase in online grooming, and horrendous online sexual exploitation and abuse, including through the use of social media apps to build up relationships and lure children into physical abuse. The audit quotes a police expert, who says:
“If Rotherham were to happen again today it would start online.”
We are passing world-leading laws to target those who groom and exploit children online, and investing in cutting-edge technology to target the highest-harm offenders, but we need to do much more, or the new scandals and shameful crimes of the future will be missed.
When the final report of Alexis Jay’s seven-year national inquiry was published in October 2022, the then Home Secretary, Grant Shapps, issued a profound and formal public apology to the victims of child sexual abuse who were so badly let down over decades by different levels of the state. As shadow Home Secretary at the time, I joined him in that apology on behalf of the Opposition, and extended it to victims of child sexual exploitation, too. To the victims and survivors of sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, on behalf of this and past Governments, and the many public authorities that let you down, I want to reiterate an unequivocal apology for the unimaginable pain and suffering that you have suffered, and for the failure of our country’s institutions, over decades, to prevent that harm and keep you safe.
But words are not enough; victims and survivors need action. The reforms that I have set out today will be the strongest action that any Government have taken to tackle child sexual exploitation. There will be more police investigations, more arrests, a new inquiry, changes to the law to protect children, and a fundamental overhaul of the way organisations work in order to support victims and put perpetrators behind bars, but none of that will work unless everyone is part of it, and everyone works together to keep our children safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Hopefully the report will be available in the Table Office for those Members who wish to see it. The Home Secretary quite rightly took longer than expected, and I have no problem with that. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the Lib Dems, that it is available to them to do the same.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement, although when I listened to it, I could not believe my ears. It was as if this was the Government’s plan all along, when we all know it is another U-turn. After months of pressure, the Prime Minister has finally accepted our call for a full, statutory, national inquiry into grooming gangs, and I welcome our finally reaching this point. We must remember that this is not a victory for politicians—especially not for the ones, like the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, who had to be dragged to this position. This is a victory for the survivors, who have been calling for this for years. However, I have been speaking to many who do not have confidence that a Government who ignored their concerns will deliver.
Before I turn to the detail of the Home Secretary’s statement, I want to recognise the tireless work of those who refused to let this issue be buried: survivors like Fiona Goddard, who bravely waived her anonymity; the parents of survivors, like Marlon West, who I spoke to this morning; Maggie Oliver, whose courage in speaking truth to power has been instrumental in bringing us to this point; the late Andrew Norfolk, whose fearless journalism brought these crimes to light; Baroness Casey for her review; and Charlie Peters, who has consistently been a voice for the voiceless.
The Prime Minister’s handling of this scandal is an extraordinary failure of leadership. His judgment has, once again, been found wanting. Since he became Prime Minister, he and the Home Secretary dismissed calls for an inquiry because they did not want to cause a stir. They accused those of us who demanded justice for the victims of this scandal of “jumping on a far-right bandwagon”, a claim that the Prime Minister’s official spokesman restated this weekend—shameful.
Time and again, it has been left to the Conservatives to force this issue. Three times—[Interruption.] They can all mutter now, but these Labour MPs voted against a national inquiry three times. The Liberal Democrats did not bother to vote at all—asleep at the wheel. Labour MPs voted against a reasoned amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and in Committee they voted against the Bill. At Committee stage of the Crime and Policing Bill—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Swallow, I want you to set a good example. This is a very serious statement, and tempers are running high, but I certainly do not want to see you pointing, shouting and bawling in that way.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, they can point and shout as much as they like; they know the truth, just as we on the Conservative Benches do. Three times—[Interruption.] I will repeat myself: Labour MPs voted against the reasoned amendment to the children’s Bill; in Committee, they voted against that Bill; and they voted against the Crime and Policing Bill in Committee. They voted against a national inquiry and, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister repeatedly ruled out a national inquiry, to the cheers of all the Labour MPs who are now pretending that they believed in an inquiry all along.
No doubt, in her response to me, the Home Secretary will try to claim that the previous Government did nothing—a wholly false assertion that she should not repeat today. The Conservative Government took extensive action, starting with the original Jay report, commissioned in 2014 by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. A year later, she commissioned the independent investigation into child sexual abuse, and Sajid Javid commissioned ethnicity data collection in 2018. It is wrong to claim, as the Home Secretary did, that ethnicity data collection had not been done. I remind her that the Foreign Secretary criticised Sajid Javid at the time, saying that he was bringing the office of Home Secretary “into disrepute”, and that he was pandering to the far-right for doing exactly what the Home Secretary says she will now do. They should be ashamed of themselves.
We accepted all the recommendations made by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in 2022, except the recommendation to have a new Cabinet Minister, which would not have made any difference at all to the victims of this scandal. The Home Secretary claimed that the recommendations sat on the shelf, but let me be clear that we went further than those recommendations. It was the Conservatives who established the grooming gangs taskforce, which supported police forces to make 807 arrests for group-based child sexual exploitation last year, so do not tell me that we did nothing.
It is vital that this inquiry is robust, swift and, above all, independent.
There are legitimate concerns about institutions investigating themselves, especially as some of the most egregious cases of institutional failure occurred in Labour-controlled authorities. [Interruption.] Labour Members can moan as much as they like, but the people out there believe that is why nothing has happened yet. In Greater Manchester, Operation Augusta was prematurely shut down. In Rotherham, which has been under continuous Labour control since 1974, we saw repeated failures. In Telford, where Labour has predominantly held power, the current MP, the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies), initially rejected calls for an inquiry while serving as council leader.
This inquiry must have teeth. It must start with known hotspots such as Bradford and Rochdale, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We need clear commitments. For example, will the inquiry examine the role of ethnicity in these crimes, confronting hard truths about potential cover-ups motivated by fears of appearing racist? [Interruption.] There is no point in Labour Members muttering—the Home Secretary said it herself.
I spoke to the father of a survivor just this morning, and he told me that survivors need to have someone who is independent and who they can go to and trust. It is no use them being forced to speak to the same authorities who ignored them in the first place. Will this inquiry ensure that no one, whether police officers, councillors or council officials, is beyond scrutiny?
The Government’s approach to the Casey review itself raises serious concerns. While the review’s findings are crucial, we as legislators are sent here to make decisions, not to outsource the difficult ones. The Prime Minister has waited months for someone to take this decision for him. That is the kind of dithering and delay that the survivors complained about.
We need answers to the following questions. The House deserves to know what changed the Prime Minister’s mind from thinking that this was dog-whistle, far-right politics to something that he must do. When exactly did Baroness Casey submit her findings to Downing Street, and did the Government request any changes to her report? Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone in authority who deliberately covered up these disgusting crimes should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and that those prosecutions should happen alongside, not after the inquiry? We believe that anyone in the police, local authorities, social services or even the CPS who covered this up because they cared more about so-called community relations than about protecting vulnerable girls as young as 10 years old should be pursued.
We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments about perpetrators not being able to make asylum claims. I remind her that we put forward an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and she and all her colleagues voted against that very measure. Does she now agree that the perpetrators should also not be able to make human rights claims to avoid deportation, and will she legislate to do that? Will the inquiry be concluded within two years, and will every one of the 50 towns affected be covered, including Bradford, which is still refusing to conduct an inquiry into this? Will those local inquiries have the power to summon witnesses, or is that power only for the national inquiry? Most critically, we need a clear timeline for conclusions and actions. The victims cannot wait another decade for justice: we should be able to do this in two years.
Finally, we did not need to commission a report to tell us what we already knew. Will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of herself, the Labour party and the Prime Minister for wasting so much time and voting against this, dismissing the concerns of the survivors? The House, the British public and, most importantly, the many brave survivors deserve clear answers from a Government of dithering and delay.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the appalling case in his constituency, where seven people were convicted on Friday. He will also know that further criminal investigations are still ongoing—it is shameful how long it has taken to get justice for those victims. I agree with him that no one can hide from justice on this appalling issue, on which victims and survivors have been let down for far too long. I hope that supporting that aim will be a cross-party process.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Child sexual abuse and exploitation are among the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, and we must all support every effort to deliver justice for victims and prevent these vile acts from happening again. It is, of course, right that the Government follow the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s report, including a new national inquiry. Survivors must be at the heart of this process. Their voices, experiences and insights must shape both the inquiry and its outcomes, and I would welcome hearing more from the Home Secretary about how she intends to ensure survivors are heard, are respected, and—essentially—are allowed to build on their existing testimony without being asked to repeat themselves and relive their abuse again and again.
The seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, delivered its final report in 2022, and the Government at the time delivered none of its recommendations, leaving survivors waiting for justice. In her remarks, the Home Secretary mentioned two of Professor Jay’s recommendations being introduced through the Crime and Policing Bill: a mandatory reporting duty and aggravated offences for grooming offenders. What does this new inquiry mean for the remaining recommendations of Professor Jay? Will victims and survivors see all 20 recommendations implemented while the new inquiry is being carried out?
Any new inquiry must be more than symbolic; it must be robust, victim-centred and capable of driving real change. A duty of candour would require public officials and authorities to co-operate fully with such an inquiry, so it continues to be disappointing that the Government have delayed bringing that provision forward. I ask the Home Secretary plainly: what is stopping the Government from introducing a duty of candour via a Hillsborough law now?
Finally, now that Baroness Casey has completed her review, I welcome her appointment as chair of the independent commission into adult social care. I trust that she will bring to that hugely important role the same determination to challenge injustice and to champion the voices of those too often left unheard.
Yvette Cooper
May I welcome my hon. Friend’s points that she makes about the anger in her community and the anger across British Muslim communities towards the grooming gangs, towards the rape of children and towards these appalling crimes? She has long called for work, including stronger action from the police to be able to go after perpetrators and bring them to justice. She is right that the horror at crimes committed against children and in particular against young girls is shared across communities. It is in the interests of those children and victim-survivors that we have reforms now.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for early sight of it, and I am pleased that Baroness Casey has agreed to appear before the Committee tomorrow to set out the contents of her report more clearly. However, I am concerned about the potential for inquiries intended to get to the truth to prejudice criminal trials. How does the Home Secretary envisage the two elements running alongside each other—an inquiry and criminal prosecutions?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will be aware that visa processing times can vary based on the type of visa and where people are applying from. However, for most applications, even those made outside the UK, decisions are usually made within three weeks. He will also be aware that we are looking at how to reform our immigration system as a result of the record levels of net migration under the previous Government, and making sure that we focus our immigration on the needs of our economy is a priority for this Government.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
New research shows that foreign nationals are claiming almost £1 billion in benefits each month. We now face the highest number of asylum claims ever recorded—up another 9% since Labour took office. Meanwhile, the 42,000 appeal backlog at the end of 2024 is projected to more than double to almost 100,000 by the end of this year. The Home Secretary herself has admitted to the media that her White Paper would cut immigration by just 50,000. This is utterly inadequate. Without real deterrence and stricter measures, the visa processing delays will only worsen, so will the Minister commit to two concrete measures: implementing the previous Conservative threshold of £38,000; and introducing a legally binding annual migration cap that actually delivers accountability?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the shadow Minister that we have a lot of Members to get in—I want to get to Question 15 on the Order Paper—and I need her help to do so?
Seema Malhotra
This is yet another example of the Opposition wanting to rewrite history. The Conservatives quadrupled net migration to record levels. I think the hon. Member will want to correct herself on the immigration White Paper, which will be reducing net migration by considerably more than she suggested; the Home Secretary has said so. The latest figures show that, since this Government came to power, almost 30,000 foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be in the UK have been removed. That includes an increase of enforced returns in the last quarter compared with the same period last year, which is a much better record than the shadow Home Secretary could achieve.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that neighbourhood police understand the challenges in each area, whether it be in North Ascot or other parts of the country, and local police can target those issues and work with local councils. There are different rules for different councils, so combined work between the council and the police is the best way to tackle local crime.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Six of Britain’s most senior police officers have warned that the Government’s actions are making it harder to keep our streets safe. From the damaging jobs tax to releasing criminals early, Labour is pushing forces to the brink. Does the Home Secretary agree with Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that he will be forced to cut 1,700 police officers, PCSOs and staff this year?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Minister is, as he knows, talking nonsense. The police have to police without fear or favour; that is the standard that they apply and sign up to. I am really sorry that he wants to undermine the important work of police across the country, just as his party in government undermined the number of police on the streets—took them off the streets—so we ended up with thousands fewer police on our streets. This Government are finally putting them back into communities and back on the beat where they belong.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Peaceful protest is a fundamental right in any free society, but for protests to remain safe and orderly, a visible, well-trained and effective police presence is often needed on top of existing neighbourhood police teams. Cities such as Manchester are seeing rising numbers of demonstrations, which the combined authority estimates will cost up to £2 million this year to police. While the Met receives specific grants to cover the cost of policing protests, Greater Manchester police receives no such allocation. That is not only unfair to my constituents, but unsustainable. In the light of the worries highlighted by police leaders about their funding being cut in the upcoming spending review, can the Home Secretary ensure that areas such as Greater Manchester receive the funding they need to police protests properly without taking away from the neighbourhood policing our communities deserve?
Jess Phillips
It is well beyond my remit as safeguarding Minister to make asylum policy, but I can absolutely guarantee the hon. Lady that migrant women and their experiences will be part of the violence against women and girls strategy; this issue has received some of the money from the recent uplift in victim services. Working together with by-and-for services across the country, we will always take account of the experiences of all women and girls in our country.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
On 28 April, the Minister was clear with this House that the framework for local grooming gang inquiries and Baroness Casey’s audit would both be published in May. It is now June. Presumably there is a new timeline for publishing them, so will the Minister share it with us, please?
Dame Angela Eagle
Enforcement of the law is the best way to deal with this issue, which is why there has been a 40% increase in visits to check whether illegal working is going on, and a 42% increase in arrests since this Government came to office.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Could I be counterintuitive for a moment and make a New Labour point? The cause of a lot of illegal migration is the fact that it is easier to work here illegally than anywhere else in Europe, and that is because we do not have national identity cards. The Gordon Brown Government, quite wisely, were going to bring them in, and the coalition Government wrongly stopped that idea. Why should we not have national consensus now on bringing in national identity cards, given that we all carry mobile phones? It would dramatically reduce illegal working.
Seema Malhotra
Indeed, carers, including those who have come from overseas, do important work to support us, our families and our communities. My hon. Friend will recognise that, as I have said, it is important for us to ensure that people’s voices can be heard in the consultation. We recognise that settlement is an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and families. Under the current system, people primarily qualify for settlement on the basis of their length of time in the UK, but we also believe that people should be contributing to the economy and society before they gain settled status in our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Another group for whom the immigration White Paper is creating uncertainty is refugee families. Family reunion is a vital route by which refugees can safely reach the UK, free from the grasps of criminal trafficking gangs. The Government should be looking for more ways to facilitate refugee family reunion, not hindering it. It is unclear how the White Paper’s reforms on English language requirements will apply to refugee family reunion. Will the Minister acknowledge the needs of this unique and vulnerable group? Is she able to provide clarity on the level of English language proficiency that people who apply for refugee family reunion will be expected to have once the reforms are implemented?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Immigration centres are not used for indefinite detention. We can only keep anyone in detention in an immigration centre if there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. If there is not, they have to be released.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the people and emergency services in Liverpool.
On the Home Secretary’s watch, this year so far has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel. The Government’s laughable claim to “smash the gangs” lies in tatters—they are not smashing gangs; they are smashing records. The right hon. Lady mentioned the French. The French prevention rate on land is lamentably under 40%, and even those who are stopped are then released to attempt a crossing again the next day. Although she talks about action at sea, nothing has happened whatsoever. At the weekend we saw pictures of the French police just standing there taking photographs while illegal immigrants departed. Does the Home Secretary agree that the recent 12-year fishing deal should be suspended until the French agree to stop those small boats at sea and prevent illegal immigration?
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the work that South Yorkshire police has been doing and the Doncaster East neighbourhood policing team going after the offroad bikes, which cause havoc and are a total nightmare in the community. They are getting additional neighbourhood police as part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, and we will give them stronger powers to keep the streets safe.
Yvette Cooper
I join my hon. Friend in saying a huge thank you to all the first responders—those who I met last week, but also many more who were involved in a very swift response that undoubtedly saved lives that day. It was a day of huge joy across the city of Liverpool that ended in a horrific incident, but I know from her constituency and across Liverpool that it is a city where communities come together in the face of the greatest difficulties and show their strength as a community.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Can I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the amendment I have tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would extend the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act to include orphanage trafficking? It is a horrific crime that affects about 5 million children across the world, and it is something we need to recognise in our legislation.
Yvette Cooper
Lord Hermer does not decide sentencing—he has a particular role as the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman, as a very experienced Member of this House, will know the way in which the system works.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
At a recent roundtable on violence against women and girls hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, we heard from local organisations that do outstanding work but are hampered by short-term funding, as well as from a brave survivor who shared her experiences. They specifically asked for the Government to commit to strategic investment. Will the Minister review contracts with the sector so they are multi-year and take a long-term view of service delivery and preventive work?
National Security Act 2023: Charges
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I must remind the House that the resolution of the House relating to matters that are sub judice prohibits any reference to cases in which an individual has been charged. Three men have been charged with offences under the National Security Act, and the matter is therefore sub judice. However, since this case concerns matters of national importance and it is in the public interest for the House to hear from the Home Secretary, I am granting a limited waiver for the purposes of this statement only, to allow discussion of the wider security issues. Members should exercise a high degree of caution in their remarks and take every care to avoid saying anything that could potentially prejudice the criminal trial.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the charging of three individuals under the National Security Act 2023 that took place on 17 May, and the further action that the Government are taking to counter national security threats. I want to thank the police and the security and intelligence agencies not just for their work on the vital operations and investigations that are currently under way, but for the dedication that they show each day to defending our national security and keeping our communities safe. Their tireless work—often in the shadows, often in secret, and often in great personal danger—is indispensable, and I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their service.
On Saturday, three Iranian nationals were charged with offences under the National Security Act 2023. All three have been charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service. Additional charges were brought in relation to engaging in conduct, including surveillance, reconnaissance and open research, with the intention to commit acts of serious violence against a person in the United Kingdom. The foreign state to which these charges relate is Iran, and those individuals are the first Iranian nationals to be charged under the National Security Act. The criminal and national security investigations in these cases are ongoing, and the police and security services have my support in their vital work. These cases must now also progress through the criminal justice system, which means that until the trial, there are limits on what we can discuss so as not to prejudice that process. However, in respect of a series of grave, wider issues, I want to update the House on the stronger action that the Government are taking to strengthen our national security, including the introduction of new powers on state threats, further action on Iran, and strengthening our border security to keep the public safe.
This is the first time there have been charges under the National Security Act linked to Iran, although the House will be aware that it comes against a backdrop of a rising number of Iran-linked operations on UK soil, where there have been repeated warnings by Ministers, the police, and our security and intelligence agencies. The director general of MI5 said in October last year that the police and MI5 had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats. Let me be clear: we will not tolerate growing state-backed threats on UK soil. The Iranian regime poses an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue.
Following the charging decision, I can confirm that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told the Iranian Foreign Minister in the strongest terms that we will not accept any Iranian state threat activity in the UK. As the Security Minister set out in March, we have placed the whole of the Iranian state in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which is due to come into effect on 1 July. The Government have also introduced sanctions as part of efforts to systematically dismantle the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work, including the Foxtrot network, which was sanctioned last month.
International co-operation is critical in challenging Iranian transnational threats, which is why we are convening ministerial counterparts from allied nations facing similar threats to discuss co-ordinated action, but we need to go further in strengthening our powers to address national security threats. The Security Minister and I have both warned of the increasing complexity of the threats we face. Threats from extremist and terrorist groups and individuals, including from Islamist extremism and far-right extremism, continue, and vigilance and action against them remain crucial.
But malign activities against us by, or on behalf of, foreign states have grown and the threats we face have become more complex and intertwined. MI5 state threats investigations have increased by nearly 50% in a year, and police investigations into state threats, led by counter-terrorism police, are up fivefold since 2018. As well as growing, those threats are becoming more interconnected, and the old boundaries between state threats, terrorists and organised criminals are being eroded. We have seen malign foreign state organisations seek to exploit any vulnerability, from criminal networks to our cyber-security and our borders, to do us harm.
In our manifesto we committed to stronger action on state-based security threats. Before entering government, the Foreign Secretary and I set out plans for the establishment of a joint unit to pursue and co-ordinate action. I can announce that the new state threats joint unit is now in place, with staff from across Whitehall driving a broader approach across Government and building new partnerships with industry and academia. Last week the Security Minister set out the recommendations of a review by the defending democracy taskforce into transnational repression—where foreign states attempt the intimidation, surveillance and harassment of UK-based individuals—including providing stronger support for those who are being targeted. This is criminal activity and will be treated as such, because everyone in this country should be able to go about their daily lives freely and without fear.
We have of course supported the National Security Act, which was rightly brought in by the previous Government, but we need to go further. That is why I commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to examine further gaps in the national security legislation where counter-terrorism powers could be emulated and to look at proscription powers, because I have long raised concern that it is too difficult to apply existing powers to state and state-backed bodies. Today Mr Hall has published his review, and I thank him for working so swiftly and comprehensively. He has concluded that there are gaps in a series of areas, including proscribing legislation, where he identifies a series of legal difficulties in using powers that were designed to deal with terrorist groups for state and state-backed organisations, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
I can tell the House that we are committed to taking forward Mr Hall’s recommendations and that we will draw up new powers, modelled on counter-terrorism powers, in a series of areas to tackle state threats. Crucially, I can tell the House that we will create a new power of proscription to cover state threats—a power that is stronger than the current National Security Act powers in allowing us to restrict the activity and operations of foreign state-backed organisations in the UK—including new criminal offences for individuals who invite support for or promote the group in question. We will not hesitate to use the power against organisations that pose a threat to UK residents, because we will not stand for foreign state organisations seeking to escalate threats on UK soil.
As was confirmed at the weekend, the three individuals who have been charged came to the UK between 2016 and 2022 by lorry and small boat. This Government have made it clear that border security is national security, which is why we are introducing new counter-terrorism powers at the border. However, let me also be clear that our border security needs to be strengthened. Those involved in organised crime, malign state actors and extremists can all exploit any vulnerabilities, so the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is introducing a wide range of counter-terrorism-style powers to pursue organised immigration crime and strengthen border investigations. We have introduced the Border Security Command, which is drawing together security operations around our border that have not been taken seriously enough before, modelled on the approach that successive Governments have taken to counter-terrorism.
As part of our existing CT capabilities, security identity and criminal record checks are carried out on everyone who applies for a visa through our immigration system, on identified clandestine entries and on those who arrive by small boat, so that immigration and counter-terrorism powers can then be used to address threats, including refusals, restrictions, tagging, heightened monitoring and immigration bail. However, I have instructed officials to review those capabilities against the state threats as well as the terrorism-related risks we face, so that we can strengthen our security response alongside the new counter-terrorism-style border powers that we are introducing. We are already reviewing our current response to criminality or threats in the asylum system, including the potential for greater use of a range of techniques and technology, as well as the existing ability to revoke or refuse asylum.
Finally, in the face of this increasing range of hybrid threats to our national security, the Prime Minister has committed to publishing a new national security strategy. The strategy, which is in development, will set out how not just our world-leading police and security and intelligence agencies, but the whole of Government and society, including businesses and communities, need to respond to these changing and complex threats.
National security is the first duty of Government, and it is the foundation of our plan for change. The threats we face are more intertwined than ever, and our response needs to adapt. Together with our international allies, we need to face down the security threats and strengthen the powers and capabilities of the police and security services, who work around the clock to investigate and disrupt those who mean us harm. Our agencies have the wholehearted support of this Government because, in a volatile and uncertain world, their efforts could not matter more. I commend this statement to the House.
Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the series of national security-related arrests that took place on Saturday 3 May. Protecting our national security is the first duty of Government, and it is a testament to our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence services that, through their tireless commitment, so many plots against the UK have been thwarted. I pay tribute to them again today for the work that they have done not just this weekend, but in recent weeks and months, on these important operations.
The two operations that took place across multiple locations this weekend were significant and complex. They were some of the largest counter-state threats and counter-terrorism actions that we have seen in recent times, and I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police, the security services and other partner agencies across the country, who showed their professionalism and expertise in carrying out these operations to keep our country safe.
Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that these are complex investigations. The police and the security services need time and space to be able to pursue their investigations, and our first priority must be to protect the integrity of that work so that we do not cut across those investigations and operations at a crucial time. However, these are serious matters, and the House will rightly want to remain informed. I will therefore outline as much detail as I am able, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that there is a strict limit to what I can say at this stage, given that investigations are now ongoing.
I will first outline the facts around the events on Saturday 3 May. Throughout the day, counter-terrorism police undertook a series of arrests relating to two separate investigations. In total, eight men were arrested by the Metropolitan police’s Counter Terrorism Command. Five men were arrested on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, as part of a proactive investigation in the areas of west London, Swindon, Rochdale, Stockport and Manchester. All five men are Iranian nationals. While four of the individuals remain in police custody, the fifth has now been bailed with strict conditions.
As part of the investigation, police officers carried out searches at a number of addresses in the Greater Manchester, London and Swindon areas. Investigations continue, with searches and activity still under way at multiple addresses across the country. The investigation relates to a suspected plot to target specific premises. Police officers have been in contact with the affected site’s representatives to make them aware and provide relevant security advice and support. However, the police have also been clear that for reasons of operational security and public safety, they are not—and I am not—able to provide further information on the target at this time, and I urge Members not to speculate about the site.
In a separate police investigation, two men were arrested at two different addresses in north-west London, and one man was arrested at an address in west London. All three were arrested under the National Security Act 2023. These three men are also Iranian nationals, and remain in police custody. I can confirm to the House that these are the first Iranian nationals arrested under the National Security Act.
The operations to execute these eight arrests under both counter-terror and counter-state threat powers—in different parts of the country, and in the space of 24 hours—were intensive. They involved a range of different organisations, including different police forces, counter-terror police, the National Crime Agency, and our security and intelligence services. These operations were co-ordinated through the world-leading Counter Terrorism Operations Centre, which brings together and co-ordinates the UK’s agencies, alongside the agencies of our Five Eyes partners, to detect and tackle national security threats. I welcome the work of the previous Government to establish CTOC in 2021, and this Government have continued to support it and invest in it since taking office.
The significant point about both counter-terrorism and counter-state threats powers is that they allow the police to intervene early to prevent and disrupt threats, not just respond after events have taken place. This is crucial for public safety, but it also makes the investigations more complex, and that is why the police need the time and space to pursue them now, so we will not be providing a running commentary on the work that they are doing. However, what now follows is an incredibly complex set of investigations, involving hundreds more officers carrying out forensic searches, collecting vital evidence across different sites across the country and securing witness statements, backed up by the continued efforts of our security and intelligence agencies. This is careful, painstaking work.
At this stage in the operations and investigations, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on or comment further on the details of these two cases and the motivations behind any of the threats that were posed. However, the House will be aware that these operations come against a backdrop of complex, interconnected threats to the UK, where state threats and counter-terrorism as well as serious and organised crime are intertwined together.
For 20 years, the greatest focus of our national security work was on terrorism—primarily from Islamist terrorism, with additional threats from Northern Ireland-related terrorism and other areas—and those threats have not gone away. Fifteen terrorist attacks have taken place since 2017, and there have been 43 late-stage disruptions of terrorism plots, but alongside that we have seen a serious, growing and complex challenge from state threats. Last year, Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, said that MI5 state threat investigations had increased by 48% in the previous 12 months. He added that, since January 2022, the police and MI5 had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats.
In March, I told Parliament that the UK is facing a growing and evolving threat from malign activity carried out by a number of states. My statement in March outlined the Government’s response to the unacceptable threat that we face from the Iranian state, and the steps we are taking to ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to disrupt and degrade Iran’s malign activity on UK soil. We have delivered on the commitments made. I announced that the whole of the Iranian state, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, would be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I laid the regulations to make this happen in the House on 1 April and committed to bring the scheme into force on 1 July. I trust that all Members will vote in favour when those regulations are debated shortly.
Let me be clear: anyone in the UK who works for the Iranian state must declare it or they will be committing a serious criminal offence. We will also go after the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work. Last month, the Government sanctioned the Foxtrot network—a network involved in violence against Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe on behalf of the Iranian regime. Training and guidance on state threats activity is now being offered by Counter Terrorism Policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK.
The independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, was asked by the Home Secretary to review the parts of our counter-terrorism framework that could be applied to modern-day state threats such as those from Iran. The Home Secretary specifically asked the reviewer to look at a state threats proscription tool, so we are not held back by limitations in applying counter-terrorism legislation to state threats. Jonathan Hall has now completed his review and will publish it shortly, and the Government will not hesitate to take action in response to Mr Hall’s advice.
As we continue to support the police and the security services in their investigations, I can also tell the House that the Home Secretary has instigated a series of security assessments that are being done or refreshed in the light of the cases this weekend and the further information surrounding them, which will ensure that the Government can respond robustly and comprehensively to any wider national security issues raised by these cases.
Working alongside our international allies to counter state threats is central to our success. The Foreign Office is engaging with our closest allies to outline the disruptive action that has taken place and will be considering potential future response options as the investigation progresses. The Home Secretary remains in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is committed to doing everything necessary to protect the country from these threats and to bring to bear all the diplomatic tools at our disposal.
The Home Secretary and Ministers will provide an update on the national security position when we are able to do so, following both these operations and investigations and the wider security assessments that are under way. The Government will not hesitate to act robustly to respond to these plots at the appropriate time, but first, we must allow the investigations to continue. Our police, security and intelligence agencies are the best in the world and stand ready at all times to take action to keep our country safe. I am sure they will have the support of the whole House as they continue this vital work. I commend this statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I can give him the assurances he seeks. The Government have been very carefully considering the matter of transnational repression. The Home Secretary and I will have more to say in the near future, but I can give him absolute assurance that we have been thinking carefully about these matters and take them incredibly seriously.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for updating the House and for advance sight of his statement. I also add my thanks to the security services and the police for all their work to keep us safe.
Over recent years Members have been called to this Chamber to discuss plots to commit acts of terror on Britain’s streets at the hands of the Iranian regime—but consecutive Governments are yet to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. In opposition, the now Foreign Secretary said:
“The IRGC is behaving like a terrorist organisation and must now be proscribed as such.”
Earlier this year I asked the Minister precisely this question: does he not agree that now is surely the time? In his earlier remarks, he mentioned the review that has concluded. If now is not the time for proscription, when should the House expect a further update?
The Liberal Democrats have welcomed previous sanctions against those linked to the Iranian regime. However, I urge the Government to go a step further and look closely at whether those individuals and others with links to the regime have assets here in the UK. Will the Minister commit to carrying out an audit, so that we know where those assets are, enabling the Government to freeze them as appropriate? The Minister is right to reference the long-standing pattern by the Iranian intelligence service of targeting people of the Jewish faith and of Israeli nationality. Could he update the House on any conversations he has had with the UK Jewish community leadership, specifically the Community Security Trust, about threats here in the UK?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. He is absolutely right that the Government will never drop their guard to the threats that we undoubtedly face in countering terrorism, whether the specific threat around Islamist extremism or state threats. We take these matters incredibly seriously, and we will work to ensure that all our security services and police forces have the resources and tools they need to address the threats we face.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. No one in the House should be in any doubt about the threat that Iran poses to us and our national security. How confident is he that its designation in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme will be effective? Is he looking to go further?
Dan Jarvis
I am looking forward—if that is the right way to describe it—to giving evidence to my hon. Friend’s Committee in the near future. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), I confirm that the Government have done a lot of work looking at the serious but complicated issue of transnational repression. The Government will have more to say about this in the near future. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) that we take these matters incredibly seriously. We have progressed at pace the work that we inherited from the previous Government. These are not simple matters; they require a whole-system approach, and we are working carefully on them across Government through the defending democracy taskforce. I assure the House that the Home Secretary and I will have more to say in the near future.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Do we know whether these men entered the country illegally or legally? Obviously, people who enter the country legally are subject to extraordinarily sophisticated surveillance at our airports and ports, but for people who enter illegally there is no surveillance at all. It is madness that thousands are entering our country with no checks at all. Is this not a good opportunity to seek a derogation from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and say that, because of our national security, we should have the right to detain these people, arrest them and rapidly deport them?
Headingley Incident
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) to ask his urgent question, I must advise the House that although the matter is not yet sub judice, for the purpose of the rules of this House relating to these matters, Members should exercise care in what they say about a live criminal investigation. I urge Members to avoid speculating about the guilt or innocence of any person. On the identity of the person who has been arrested and the motive for the attacks, Members should take care not to say anything in this House that might prejudice a criminal trial. Members may ask about the emergency services, the response to the attacks, the support for victims’ families and other connected matters, but I urge the utmost caution in avoiding any remarks that might be prejudicial.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the community, the members of the public who came forward when the attack was happening and the emergency services, who, as ever, run towards danger when many others run in the opposite direction. It is absolutely right that we pay tribute in the way that he has done. I hope that my response to his urgent question offered him some reassurance about the Government’s approach towards crossbows and what more we want to do. As I said, we will shortly publish our response to the consultation that took place last year. The investigation is under way; I know that it will be thorough and comprehensive, and that all the issues he raised will be looked at.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Everybody will have found the reports about this incident, which was of great severity, deeply concerning. I would like to express my deepest sympathies to those who were injured during this horrendous attack. Our thoughts are with them at this time. I also thank the public, the police and the emergency services more broadly for their response to the incident.
There are two aspects that I would like to touch on with the Minister. West Yorkshire police has said that counter-terrorism police are involved in responding to the incident. We have heard from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation about the importance of not allowing an information vacuum to form. Will the Minister ensure that there is as much transparency as possible in the release of information about this case?
Secondly, I am aware that in the aftermath of the incident, although the police are not seeking anyone else in connection with it, there will be an increased police presence across Headingley and the broader city of Leeds in the coming days and weeks. Given that this horrific attack was on two young women, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether there have been any discussions about what that presence will entail and what measures are being taken, in particular to ensure that young women and girls feel safe in Leeds following this incident.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. Let me reassure her that all police forces have additional resources in this new financial year—up to £19.6 billion is going into policing. We know that there are challenges in policing, but I have every confidence that West Yorkshire police has the resources it needs. West Yorkshire has a very effective mayor and deputy mayor, who leads on policing, and they make the case for their police force very well indeed.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
No one should have to live in fear of such horrific violence. The appalling events in Headingley on Saturday have left a community shocked and two women with really serious injuries. My thoughts and those of all the Liberal Democrats are, of course, with the victims, their families and all those affected by a crime of such awful brutality. This is yet another devastating example of the violence faced by women and girls across the country, which we must all work to end. It is also yet another example of a violent attack in which a crossbow has been used—one of too many in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), among others, has urged the Government to review and strengthen crossbow regulations. I note the Government’s amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, including new clause 70, and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Can the Minister confirm when the Government’s formal response to the call for evidence will be published?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, of course I would condemn any such comments. Clearly, I cannot comment on anything that was posted online in relation to the case we are talking about today, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we work in partnership with technology companies to ensure that they understand their responsibility to tackle illegal content on their platforms, and we have been clear that they need to act quickly to identify and remove such content from their platforms once it has been posted. More generally, the Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on platforms to swiftly identify and remove illegal content, which we expect them to abide by. Furthermore, these platforms have a moral responsibility to keep their users and the general public safe, and we expect them to take all reasonable steps to do so.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very important that this matter is raised, but I am not sure that it fits in here. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had raised the issue in the House by making a point of order at the end.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Our thoughts are with the victims and, indeed, with the police officers and the emergency services workers, who responded in such a positive way. Like others, I believe that such incidents highlight the fact that police officers, and particularly police community support officers, need to be on the ground so that they can deal with the use of crossbows, put in place measures to ensure public safety, and send the message that the police are close by. That needs to be the case not just in Headingley, but across all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Child Rape Gangs
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree that action is what is needed, which is exactly why the Home Secretary has written to all police forces in England and Wales seeking to ensure that more arrests are made in these cases. The grooming gangs taskforce has in the past nine months made 597 arrests, surpassing the entire previous year, because we are so heavily focused on ensuring that these people end up behind bars. I think Professor Jay was ignored by the previous Government, and had we had mandatory reporting 10 years ago, when the current Home Secretary asked for it, perhaps more people would have been held accountable.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
No child should ever endure sexual exploitation or abuse. Such horrific and unacceptable crimes must have no place in our society. Victims and survivors of these crimes must be at the centre of our thoughts whenever we discuss these matters. We owe it to them not just to offer words of support, but to deliver justice and bring offenders to account. That also means taking firm preventive action to protect future generations from such harm. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, published its recommendations in 2022. Will the Minister please set out a clear timetable for the full implementation of the Jay inquiry’s recommendations? Does the Minister agree that a duty of candour, via a Hillsborough law, would bring transparency and accountability to any future inquiry? Will the Government commit to a timetable for delivering that?
Jess Phillips
Yes. As was outlined in Professor Alexis Jay’s report, the need for an overreaching authority to ensure accountability across the child protection system was made very clear. As we roll out the new authority, we are consulting many experts on what exactly it needs to look like and ensuring that we get the very best possible. I am sick of hearing lessons learned in a serious case review about a child rape, a child rape gang or a child death. There needs to be genuine accountability and things need to change.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that policy must be victim-centred and that we must put victims at the heart of everything we do. Could she provide more information on when we will know about the remaining four locations? What will she do to ensure that the councils that are reluctant to be part of this work are compelled to do so?
Jess Phillips
It had written to the previous Government, as had Telford. So, for me, this story started many years—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. To say it is simply untrue is to suggest something about the Minister. We have to get this right—
Neil O’Brien
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not correct that Oldham council had written to the last Government. An individual councillor had, but Oldham council had not. That is the whole point.
Mr Speaker
I am sure if there has been a mistake, the Minister will correct that.
Jess Phillips
I will check the record and make sure, but what I am absolutely certain of is the number of times that Telford council wrote and asked. I am aware that Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oxford, or any of the places that have had an inquiry, were never given a single bean by the previous Government to do that work, and yet here we are and we will do it.
Tackling Child Sexual Abuse
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Angela Eagle
We inherited a system in chaos and a series of asylum contracts worth billions of pounds that were 10 years long, with a break clause in 2026, so we are looking seriously at what we can do to get better value for public money in those contracts. The action on Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd is one example of the work we are doing to drive better value in the contracts that we inherited. We will not tolerate the behaviour of subcontractors or contractors who do not provide good value for money, which is why we have insisted that Clearsprings Ready Homes removes Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd from its supply chain.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to hear the shadow Home Secretary’s greatest hits of Conservative failures from the last Parliament, whether it be cuts to neighbourhood policing or the woeful handling of the asylum system under the previous Government, in which he was a Home Office Minister. Of course the Home Office should ensure that all asylum accommodation providers deliver value for money, safety and security, but tinkering with contracts will not change the fact that asylum hotels are a lose-lose. They eat up taxpayer money and leave local councils and communities to sort out the mess.
To pick dates at random, the share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 83% in the second quarter of 2015 to just 6% towards the end of the last Government’s time in office. When does the Minister think that the processing of applications will speed up so that the backlog will come down, communities such as mine will get the use of their hotels back and those granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our economy?
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The media are reporting that the earliest the contract can be broken is September next year. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? What liability does the taxpayer have for a contract ending today that we cannot get out of until September next year?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are doing all that we can with the existing contracts to drive value for money, and we are also looking to pilot some other potential alternatives to supply.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Under the refugee convention, we can automatically deport illegal migrants who come here, but under the European convention on human rights we cannot. I had a probing new clause moved on my behalf in Committee on this subject, and, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I hope to move it again on Report. I know that the Minister cannot answer absolutely now, but will she look at that new clause in a constructive spirit? Surely we can all agree that we do not want criminals entering this country illegally.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will know that, for many generations, refugees who have arrived for resettlement in the UK have been able to apply for British citizenship if they meet the conditions, and that continues to be the case. The UK must always do its bit to support those who are fleeing persecution, but we are also clear that we must do all we can to prevent people from making dangerous boat crossings and risking their lives in the arms of criminal gangs.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As we have heard, according to the Centre for Policy Studies, over 800,000 migrants from the past five years could soon claim indefinite leave to remain. In NHS care, benefits, social housing and more, that will cost £234 billion—nearly six years of defence spending, or almost all income tax receipts for a year. Will the Minister commit to extending the qualifying period for ILR, or will she accept that the consequence of her policy is a liability for the public of hundreds of billions of pounds?
Jess Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, and for his commitment to supporting victims. He will be aware that his private Member’s Bill is the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade, but I would of course be willing to meet him, and the Department, to discuss it.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The recent National Audit Office report on the Government’s response to violence against women and girls, which includes domestic abuse, made a number of recommendations. My Committee will be considering that issue, but will the Minister comment on what the Government’s response will be to those recommendations, and say how she will ensure that domestic abuse is tackled across the country, including in Gloucester?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I recognise the parlous state of the criminal justice system that we inherited, which has led to some victims of rape and sexual violence waiting for years on end. I note that the shadow Justice Secretary has only just noticed that failing, now that he has the word “shadow” in front of his job title, and even though his Government presided over that failing for a decade. Part of the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, which I work on in concert with the Ministry of Justice, is about ensuring that that issue is sorted.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Fiona from Bradford was failed numerous times by social services and local police after suffering horrific sexual abuse at the hands of gangs of men while in a care home. Bradford’s local authority has shamefully sought to block a local inquiry into the issue. In Fiona’s own words:
“The Government can’t just leave it down to the local councils to decide if they’re going to be investigated, they’re going to have to enforce it.”
Will the Home Secretary reconsider a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs? If not, how will she guarantee that cases like that can never be allowed to happen again?
Yvette Cooper
We are clear that we need to tackle extremist and terror threats wheresoever they are found, which includes making sure that we have strengthened border security. That is why we have put forward new counter-terror style powers around people smuggling and trafficking to strengthen our border security, and it is also why we need to tackle particularly the radicalisation we see online. That is where we also see young people being drawn into extremist and terror threats. Wheresoever that is found, we need strong action in place to keep our country safe.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In fighting terrorism, the Security Minister has rightly said that Islamism is the foremost threat we face. Its danger lies not just in physical violence, but in the intolerance it embodies and the intimidation it relies on. Will the Home Secretary give a clear answer to this question? Should it be a criminal offence to desecrate a Koran or any holy text: yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, as he always does. I can say to him that a threat is a threat, regardless of the direction from which it comes. We take all those threats extremely seriously, and we work around the clock with the police and the operational agencies to keep the public safe, wherever the threat may originate.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Strong encryption is vital for everyone’s security, but last week Apple pulled its advanced data protection services in the UK after the Home Office had reportedly demanded back-door access to its UK customers’ encrypted data. Liberal Democrats have long argued that investigatory powers must be proportionate, as any “way in” for security services can be exploited by criminal gangs or, indeed, hostile states to target innocent people. Given that rights and security go hand in hand, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our national security and civil liberties are properly protected? Why do the Government believe that Apple’s UK customers do not deserve the same privacy rights as every other customer in the rest of the world?
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
My hon. Friend is right to say that asylum costs make up the bulk of Home Office spend classified as ODA spending and that we are committed to reducing them, including by ending the use of hotels, which will mean that we can return that ODA resource so that it can be used upstream to prevent migratory flows from happening in the first place.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Border security is fundamental, but between the July election and yesterday, 25,135 people illegally and dangerously crossed the English channel—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months earlier. Does the Home Secretary now regret ignoring the National Crime Agency’s advice that law enforcement alone is not enough and that a removals deterrent is needed?
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, let us show a little bit more restraint, and when you ask a question, at least wait for the answer.
Yvette Cooper
The scheme ran for two years, and the Conservatives spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to return just four people. In the period during which the shadow Home Secretary was in the Government, 128,000 people arrived on small boats, and only a tiny percentage of them were ever returned, even though that number included 12,000 Albanians. This Government are having to sort out this chaos, but his party is again failing to support counter-terrorism powers against smuggler and trafficking gangs—siding with the criminal smuggler gangs instead of the people of Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. The Government are clear that online platforms are a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and must be responsible and held accountable for the content of their sites, including taking proactive steps to prevent their sites being used by criminals. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed the discussion on this earlier. We have been clear that the central priority for policing set by this Government is neighbourhood policing, to tackle town centre crime, challenges across the country and serious violence, including violence against women and girls and the knife crime devastating young lives. We have made those priorities clear to police forces right across the country as part of our policing reform and our new legislation.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Dispersal accommodation for asylum is unevenly distributed across the country. In Hartlepool, we support 50 asylum seekers per 10,000 in the population, yet a few miles up the road, the neighbouring local authority supports seven per 10,000, with local authorities elsewhere in the country hosting none. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair, and that, as we bring the numbers down, we must evenly distribute support for asylum seekers across the areas?