Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Over this Labour Government’s term in office so far, we have spent a lot of time discussing and highlighting the evils of child abuse and the exploitation of women and girls, and there has been a lot of progress. The audit from Baroness Casey on grooming gangs made several recommendations that we have already put into motion; the reforms that we are making to taxi licensing and safety through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill are a key example.

However, I want to open today’s debate by talking about an issue that I have previously discussed with the Minister: the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, which is one of the key recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I approach this issue as someone who grew up in a small religious organisation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which IICSA recognised as having a serious problem with child sexual abuse. Last June, I stood here and highlighted my concerns that the Government’s proposals to introduce mandatory reporting in the Crime and Policing Bill have been significantly watered down from IICSA’s recommendations. I raised three issues: first, a lack of proper sanctions for non-compliance; secondly, the fact that the duty proposed applies only when someone receives a direct disclosure or witnesses abuse happening, and not when they have strong reasons to suspect it; and thirdly, loopholes in who is included; under the drafting, it is religious leaders who have “unsupervised” contact with children who come under the duty to report. I set out why that would allow most lay religious leaders to escape the duty, despite their holding enormous power and influence over their followers, using the particular example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

To begin with, I do have some good news. Just a few hours ago, the House of Lords approved a Government amendment to remove the word “unsupervised” from that definition of religious leaders. I want to thank the Minister, as well as her Lords counterpart, Lord Hanson, for listening to my lobbying on that front. That small change could make a real difference in protecting children from abuse in small religious organisations, but it will make the most difference only if we fix the other two issues, on which there has not been as much progress. I will not rehash my arguments in detail about why they are so critical.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He spoke on this issue some time ago, and made a very good case. I support him in the case that he is putting forward, and I want to give him an illustration. A 2013 report by the Northern Ireland Assembly revealed that small, unaffiliated groups, including those that use church or faith premises, had gaps in child protection and safeguarding, and might not be subject to credential checks. Does he agree with me—I believe he does—that legislation and guidance must be brought up to date and strengthened to ensure that smaller organisations do not fall through the gaps when it comes to ensuring proper safeguarding, so that we can increase protections for all children across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? He deserves to be congratulated on what he is doing tonight.

[Sam Carling]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It sounds like really helpful evidence and a really good example, and I will certainly go away and have a look at it.

I will not rehash the arguments I made in June, but I will say that IICSA was clear, having examined the issue in huge depth over many years, that both strong sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion were essential to create a duty that works, and its views have not changed. On Friday, two of the four IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary, pressing for the duty in the Crime and Policing Bill to be strengthened, so that it complies with their original recommendations.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I believe that Alexis Jay told the Home Affairs Committee that this mandatory reporting was one of the most important recommendations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we deliver on the recommendation in full, and do not allow any leeway when there is reasonable evidence that abuse may be occurring, which would allow people to get away with not reporting that suspicion?

[Sam Carling]

I am really grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with her. It is really important that we listen to IICSA, which spent many years on this, and deliver what it recommended. When it comes to religious organisations in which there is a strong culture of distrusting secular authorities, there is no other way to make them do the right thing. I again highlight the work of the Australian royal commission, which found that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that country had documented 1,006 cases of child sexual abuse and reported not even one to the police—not one. That is not an accident; it is a systemic cover-up on a catastrophic level.

The Government’s case for not fully complying with IICSA seems to rest on two arguments: first, that strong sanctions for a failure to report child sexual abuse would create a chilling effect, which would stop people wanting to go into professions that work with children; and, secondly, that widening the duty to include reasonable suspicion would produce a flood of reports that would overwhelm our system. The Government have written to me to say that their position on these issues is supported by expert stakeholders, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse.

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

I think it takes an average of 26 years for children to disclose that they were victims of sexual abuse, so it is absolutely critical that the provision on the reasonable suspicion of abuse is included in the Bill, as well as the trigger for the duty to report. In small, high-demand religious organisations, cultural norms prevent open discussion of sexual harm and discourage mandatory reporting. That needs to be overturned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know has done a lot of work on this matter, in particular on making sure that the seal of confession is not exempted from mandatory reporting. I very much appreciate her work on that, which is really important. She says—I am sure that she has the correct figure—that it takes on average 26 years for someone, having been a victim, to report child sexual abuse. That goes to show that we cannot have a duty that relies on that reporting. We must ensure that people are empowered and will report their reasonable suspicion.

I met all the stakeholders I have just cited and many more, and not all back the Government position. The NSPCC is deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the Government as the only consequence for non-compliance are not enough. It does not want sanctions that could lead to a criminal record, but very much wants stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines, so I would argue that there is ample space for a well-thought-through compromise here. I have drafted an exemplar amendment, showing how civil sanctions could work. It is based on the Home Office fine-issuing powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled the amendment in the Lords, for debate earlier today.

Similarly, the NSPCC feels strongly that the mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger. That raises concerns about why the Home Office said to me that the NSPCC did not hold that position, and used that point to bolster the Government position. Some other stakeholders cited as agreeing with the Government have also expressed a much more nuanced position to me, accepting that the position is finely balanced, and that their concerns could be ameliorated through effective training—there have been amendments on that previously.

On these issues, the international evidence is so clear. Many countries with mandatory reporting have criminal sanctions, including a significant majority of US states, France, Australia, Croatia and Canada.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On reasonable suspicion, does he agree with me that in any closed community, including religious organisations, it is a characteristic of abuse that people have suspicions, but often nobody feels able to speak up? Bringing reasonable suspicion into the definition for mandatory reporting, and putting that on the statute book, is a really important safeguard in that context. It creates an additional duty that could allow us to deal with circumstances that are pretty common.

[Sam Carling]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. In the debate in the House of Lords earlier today, Baroness Grey-Thompson gave a good example from when she was a younger athlete of sports coaches’ behaviour that she had observed. She believes that if there had been a duty relating to reasonable suspicion, it could have helped in dealing with some of that.

In none of the countries I named earlier has the feared chilling effect arisen, despite strong sanctions for failure to report. Nevertheless, as I have set out, firm civil sanctions would be a fair compromise, supported by virtually all stakeholders. On the concerns about floods of reports, we just have to look at the international evidence. Those floods just do not happen. Extensive research by Professor Ben Mathews in Western Australia, which has both criminal sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion, found that while there was an increase, the number of substantiated investigations—those with a finding of abuse—doubled, from an annual mean of 160 in the pre-law period to 327 in the post-law period. That indicates that twice as many sexually abused children were being identified. Compare that to Wales, where IICSA was told that the introduction of a weaker duty in 2016 had

“not led to a substantive change in practice”.

At this point, I want to highlight that the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation all clearly want the Government to criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. Clause 79 of the Bill criminalises stopping a mandated reporter from carrying out their duty to report. That is welcome, but it needs to be broader. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other small religious groups, there is ample evidence that religious leaders regularly stop victims or their parents reporting abuse to police because it will “bring reproach on God’s name”. As parents and victims will not be mandated reporters, that will remain completely legal. Once again, I urge the Government to close these loopholes.

The Government’s own impact assessment indicates that the duty will increase the number of child sexual offences recorded by police by just 0.3%. Vulnerable children need us to create a much stronger duty to report this abuse, as IICSA recommended. By doing so, we can shine much-needed light on safeguarding failings in small religious groups and others, and protect so many children.

I will now move on to discuss other safeguarding issues in small religious groups, beginning with shunning. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this has long been called “disfellowshipping”. When someone commits a serious sin in the eyes of the religion, their believing family and friends are ordered to shut them off entirely and treat them as though they are dead.

The same applies when someone voluntarily leaves. The Australian royal commission looked at this too, through the lens of the position in which it places victims of abuse, saying:

“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”

It happens all the time. The culture of non-reporting and forgiveness for child abusers leads to them remaining at large. Victims are silenced, told that their abusers have been forgiven by God; many leave, and then it is they who lose their entire families. It is victim blaming taken to extremes.

Let us consider those removed involuntarily for apparent “grave sins”. What might constitute a grave sin? Well, how about being gay? Religious teachings regularly equate homosexuality with paedophilia—they are lumped together. Let me read a brief quote from the Jehovah’s Witness “Awake!” magazine, a key publication intended to teach believers:

“True, some individuals may very well be prone to homosexuality… but…a Christian cannot excuse immoral behaviour by saying he was ‘born that way.’ Child molesters invoke the same pathetic excuse when they say their craving for children is ‘innate’. But can anyone deny that their sexual appetite is perverted? So is the desire for someone of the same sex.”

Children growing up in that religion are subjected to this bile constantly. I would know—I was one of them. But at least I survived. Lots do not; people like Stephen, the nephew of one of the religion’s governing body members, who died by suicide in January 2020, having been disfellowshipped and ostracised for being gay. Yet the organisation is considered a charity in the UK. It holds tax exemptions and is eligible for direct UK Government funding through Gift Aid. How can that be right? How can an organisation that causes so much harm be charitable?

It is not the only example. There are many small religious organisations active in the UK that expose children to horrific teachings, particularly about women and girls. At Prime Minister’s questions recently, I highlighted the National Secular Society’s “Mission and Misogyny” report, which is full of such examples. There was a recent example near the Minister’s constituency; in January, the NSS reported that the Green Lane masjid and community centre in Birmingham streamed a sermon in which listeners were told that

“discipline in the case of rebellion”

is one of the

“rights of the husband over the wife”,

that husbands have a right to “obedience” as well as a right to “intimacy”.

I must be clear at this point, as I hope I have been throughout, that these extremist examples happen across faith traditions. This example is Islamic; I have equally spent a lot of time up to now talking about a Christian example. These organisations must not cloud our view of the many religious charities that do brilliant work to support people, but they point to a broken charity system in need of repair.

That is why I have been calling for a review into charity law and regulation. We must have ways to ensure that organisations that promote harm towards vulnerable people, particularly through mandated shunning, cannot gain the tax, reputational and funding benefits of a charity. The Charity Commission must also seriously step up its game as a regulator, as there is a serious pattern of failing to take action despite repeated requests, which the “Mission and Misogyny” report lays bare.

I want to also put on the record my shock at the recent case in which the Charity Commission took legal action against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to stop the ombudsman laying before this House reports detailing complaints upheld against the commission. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, had to bring a privilege motion to force the ombudsman to release the files—which it wanted to do—because of the commission’s legal threats blocking it. I understand that the commission has still pursued that legal action. It is not on.

I ask the Minister whether she will make herself popular with the Treasury by agreeing that organisations promoting hate and abusive practices such as shunning should not be eligible for public money, and therefore support my calls for a thorough review of charity status. Will she also agree that either the Government or the relevant Select Committee should consider a thorough deep dive into the Charity Commission’s approach to safeguarding issues?

Finally, I want to briefly touch on a third issue: safeguarding and coercion in medical settings. Again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the clearest example. As many people will know, their religion teaches not to accept blood transfusions, which is described as a “personal choice” that they make. But when the consequence for not taking that choice is shunning and the permanent cutting off of family and friends, is it a choice? Maybe—and religious freedoms of adults to make medical decisions must always be allowed. Similarly, people must always be free to request visits from religious ministers during medical treatment or a hospital stay.

In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, though, requests for religious ministers will be met with the arrival of a hospital liaison committee. This is a group of elders whose role is simple: to enforce the rules on blood transfusions. They will “help” patients by advocating for their personal choice not to accept blood and will always claim that decisions are for the patient to make. However, the elders’ handbook, which I have here, clearly states that Witnesses should be strongly encouraged to fill out durable powers of attorney for someone else to refuse blood on their behalf. Either way, the hospital liaison committee will be there, watching. If the patient does not comply with the no-blood rule, they can expect to be disfellowshipped and shunned promptly. With the HLC there, there is little hope of being able to make a real personal choice in private if it differs from religious teaching. That really is coercion.

Ministers of religion can no doubt provide huge support and relief to patients of all faiths, and they do so, but I would argue that they should not be allowed to advocate for patients’ medical wishes where there is a clear conflict of interest, as in these cases. Furthermore, these bodies must only be allowed in when the patient requests them. A former HLC elder has approached me with allegations that some NHS trusts have established policies to call the HLC by default when a Jehovah’s Witness is admitted. No doubt it is done with the best of intentions, as they do not want to do anything wrong, but given that those HLCs exist to push an agenda that may not be the patient’s, that is a serious problem.

I will close by asking the Minister if she will liaise with Department of Health and Social Care colleagues and push for a review of NHS trust policies towards these bodies to ensure that they are called only when a patient requests it, and that patients have clear opportunities to articulate their final decision in respect of any treatment and receive treatment away from the HLC if they so wish.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome that the strategy will have a focus on tackling the root causes of misogyny and radicalisation in young men. Those roots are often laid in early childhood, so what consideration has the Minister given to how social and emotional learning programmes in early years settings could be part of the prevention strategy? Would she be willing to meet Think Equal—an organisation that delivers such programmes? It started a trial in Greater Manchester and has funding to expand nationally. It just needs Government backing.

[Jess Phillips]

I am more than happy to speak to any agencies who have new good suggestions in this space. The strategy will include children, from birth—in fact, before, because of the dangers to women when they are pregnant.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member has made a strong and powerful case for the inclusion of Bradford and Keighley in the inquiry as one of the areas for a local investigation. I hope he will understand why I will not make commitments on behalf of Baroness Longfield, but I know that she will see the debate and hear all these representations. She and the panel members will very soon set out the criteria by which they will make decisions about where they will go for local investigations. I know that she and the panel members will want to engage with Members of the House. I hope that the hon. Member will take reassurance from that. I know that he is a doughty campaigner for his local area, and I am sure that those representations will be heard.

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

I hugely welcome the appointment today of the chair and panel members, all of whom are brilliant appointments and who will do a thorough job. I am also pleased to see religion referred to in the terms of reference. IICSA unveiled serious problems in religious groups of many different faiths, many of which also operate as charities. Will the Secretary of State outline what progress the Government have already made on implementing recommendations from that inquiry? Will she also ask the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss strengthening charity regulations so that any religious organisations operating as charities that are found to have played a part in this can face action?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I believe my hon. Friend has already met the Minister for Safeguarding, but she has just told me that she is happy to meet him again. I am sure that that meeting will take place as quickly as possible. He will know that we are pressing ahead with implementation of the IICSA recommendations, as well as with the Casey audit recommendations. If there are any gaps, we will seek to fill them. The first thing is to meet the test of the recommendations that have already been made, but I look forward to discussing those further with him in due course.

Angiolini Inquiry

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The findings of the report will absolutely inform the strategy. I do speak to Lady Elish—but I am not waiting for Lady Elish’s various reports to do things or not. I cannot wait for reports if something absolutely needs to be done. With regard to policing in Rochdale, I will ensure that the new National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection looks into what my hon. Friend mentions.

I look across the country at areas where police forces may have historically had quite public failings—as with the case of Sarah Everard—and it is really good to see the level of learning that there has been in lots of those places, but we want to see more. I only wish that we did not wait for terrible tragedies and total failings before we changed, so I stand again at this Dispatch Box and implore every agency and police force across the country to stretch every muscle to prioritise this issue.

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

I hope that after the statement, we will all go away and check whether our police forces are in that 26% who still do not have those basic policies in place and, if that is the case, seek to address it. The statistics on young women as victims of these crimes are particularly shocking. Will the Minister outline more about what we will do about that specifically, and say whether the upcoming strategy will include measures to combat the rise in misogyny among young men?

[Jess Phillips]

I do not want to give too many trails on the strategy, but yes. For a long time, I have spent my career trying to put nicer, better plasters on cuts that do not get any smaller. That work is vital, but I want to stop the cuts from happening—I do not want to make nicer plasters any more—and that means doing things that have never been done before. Lady Elish said brilliantly in the report that plenty of things have been allowed, whether in policing or other areas, to try to make progress without the need for a completely solid evidence base. I want that for this area.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I deplore the ease with which so many armchair warriors feel the need to speculate and spread misinformation on social media. It is important that the police and all our emergency services are able to proceed with their investigations not only at pace but transparently, so as to calm any tensions that might arise as a result of misinformation that spreads, particularly across social media. In terms of how other people may or may not have reacted, I tend to think that at moments of such crisis people normally reveal their true colours. I will leave my remarks about other individuals there.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that knife crime must be tackled forcefully. As I said earlier, we have seen an 18% decrease in murders by knife, and I will make sure he receives the further stats that he mentioned. As I have said, the data in relation to knife crime is going in a better direction, but like others in this House, I am impatient to see more change happen more quickly. I hope he will work with us on a cross-party basis on all the measures needed to achieve that. Of course, when all the facts around this case are known and understood, I will ensure that any lessons that there are to be learned will be learned and acted upon.

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

May I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the first responders, the police and everyone on the train who put their lives at risk to protect others? So many people from the communities I represent in both Peterborough and Huntingdonshire have written to me today in absolute fear, shock and confusion at how this could have happened so close to home, particularly after we found out this morning that the charged individual is from my constituency. Constituents have also been worried and alarmed about reports over the last few hours that the offender may have been involved in further incidents in Peterborough and London. Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for community cohesion following this incident, and ensure that a full investigation takes place into those possible other offences?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can only imagine how terrifying it must have been for my hon. Friend’s constituents and those in neighbouring areas to hear news of this horrifying attack. He will know that I cannot say any more at the moment about other potential incidents—they are the subject of further investigation. As more facts are confirmed by the police, we will be able to say more and, of course, the IOPC must be allowed to do its work.

When we know more about the facts of this case, we will know whether it relates to community cohesion or to wider community issues. I encourage Members to wait until more facts are known before we draw those broader conclusions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary that we reassure communities in his constituency and across the country. That is why there is an increased police presence across the transport network and why this Government will ensure that, as we know more, where there are lessons to be learned, they will be learned and acted upon.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I say to Opposition Members that their relentless politicisation of the issue is no doubt making it much harder to find a chair because it will be putting candidates off.

As the inquiry gets under way, we must keep up progress on implementing the recommendations of the Jay IICSA inquiry. I raised concerns on Report during the Crime and Policing Bill that the Government’s proposals to implement mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse do not go quite as far as IICSA wanted, and those concerns were raised again in the other place last week by Baroness Grey-Thompson. Will the Minister ask her colleague Lord Hanson to meet me and Baroness Grey-Thompson to discuss how we can remedy that in a way that works for everyone and that protects children?

[Jess Phillips]

The simple answer is yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his first point. What we should all seek to be doing throughout this is to try to grease the wheels so that we can have the best possible inquiry. We should all be seeking to do that while holding people to account with as much scrutiny as is needed. I will absolutely do that, and obviously I have met Lord Hanson a number of times. Getting mandatory reporting right is vital and, much like in the survivor group, there are different views on either side.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

We need to ensure that the police are doing what we need them to be doing, and that they are out on the streets solving crime and not tied up in red tape. That is absolutely certain. The way to be tough on crime is to be smart on crime, and I am happy to look at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions.

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

I recently met a police officer in Cambridgeshire who told me that that force had a policy requiring all footage from stop and searches to be reviewed by a more senior officer. Due to this, they feel discouraged from doing proactive patrols due to the extra work that it adds for already stretched supervisors. Will the Policing Minister write to Cambridgeshire’s Conservative police and crime commissioner and urge him to be more proactive on challenging these issues so that our frontline police can spend as much time as possible out in our communities?

[Sarah Jones]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend’s police and crime commissioner is not doing what is needed. We need to empower the police to be out doing what they do best, not creating barriers for them to do so.

Crime and Policing Bill

Sam Carling Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. A small minority wreak havoc on our countryside and our streets, and create absolute chaos. That is what this amendment is about: tougher sanctions to divert people from doing such mindless things.

The money wasted every year on cleaning up would be better spent on frontline services, such as filling potholes or providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others or for our natural environment. The most common location for fly-tipping is on pavements and roads, which accounted for 37% of all incidents in 2023-24. The majority—59%—involved small van-sized dumps, or an amount of waste that could easily fit in a car boot. It is therefore logical to conclude that a significant majority of fly-tipping incidents stem from vehicles. Using a vehicle to dump a van full or a boot full of waste should come with real consequences, and the people who do it should feel that in their ability to use their vehicle, as well as through financial penalties. The previous Government increased fines for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000, but we can go further to deter people from dumping on the doorsteps of others. The amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult on the establishment of a scheme of driving licence penalty points for fly-tippers and those who toss rubbish from vehicles.

In Committee, the Minister pledged to engage with DEFRA on this issue. By passing this amendment, we could go further by committing to undertake a consultation to develop a workable and effective scheme. For the benefit of all those who want to be able to enjoy their green spaces, and for our environment and the wildlife that suffers at the hands of fly-tippers and those who toss waste, I urge Members to support the amendment. Let us send a message to the mindless minority who wreak havoc on our green spaces.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the attention of the House to amendments 167, 168, 170 and 171, which, among other Conservative proposals, aim to strengthen respect orders. We have heard the Minister speak both in Committee and in the Chamber of the role these orders can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The success of the policy will be contingent on its effective enforcement by the police, and on perpetrators being aware that they will face tough sanctions if they breach the orders. I hope the Government will continue to consider these amendments.

I draw Members’ attention to these amendments as they are indicative of the constructive approach Conservative Members have taken towards improving the Bill in ways that we believe would benefit the legislation as a whole. I hope that Members across the House will give serious consideration to our amendments and new clauses over the coming two days.

The Minister and I have spent more time together than she probably ever envisaged, and I believe we can agree that the Bill contains some sensible and proportionate measures: greater protections for our retail workers, efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, and more measures to tackle vile and horrendous child exploitation. However, we can work together to go further, and that is what our Opposition amendments seek to do.

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

I begin by once again welcoming the Bill. It will deliver so much for my constituents by protecting people from crime and enabling tough action on antisocial behaviour, including in areas that have too long been labelled “low level” and ignored, such as the illegal off-road bikes that constituents so often raise with me.

The Bill will introduce mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse—one of the key recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, or IICSA. This is a long-overdue measure, which has long been called for by our Labour Home Secretary and Prime Minister personally. However, I remain concerned that the Government are not going far enough on the issue of mandatory reporting. I have therefore tabled three amendments to the Bill on that subject—amendments 10, 11 and 22—on which I will focus my speech today.

Amendments 10, 11 and 22 are not intended to change Government policy—quite the opposite. They are intended to deliver the Government’s stated policy to implement the IICSA recommendations relevant to the Home Office in full. The Home Secretary stated in January that that was the Government’s intention, and reaffirmed that just yesterday, responding with a firm “yes” to my question after her statement on whether it remained Government policy to implement the recommendations in full.

However, there are three significant gaps in our plans to implement recommendation 13 on mandatory reporting, where the Bill does not deliver what IICSA recommended. With these gaps, I am concerned that the duty to report will be ineffective in some of the settings where it is most needed. My concern applies to religious groups in particular. I will use the example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—the religious group I grew up in—to illustrate how and why.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have a deep cultural distrust of secular authorities, which, as happens in a lot of religious groups, leads to a culture of dealing with everything internally, including child sexual abuse, and reporting nothing to the police. Their internal processes for doing so are atrocious. Jehovah’s Witnesses have something called the “two witness rule”, which means that no action is taken on any report of wrongdoing unless there are two witnesses to it. There are never two witnesses to child sexual abuse. I give that context to highlight why the mandatory duty to report must be absolutely watertight, as IICSA recommended, to prevent people in the leadership of organisations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses from avoiding it.

I will cover the three gaps in turn. First, there are no criminal sanctions if someone does not comply with the duty. I understand that the Government are proposing professional sanctions, such as a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service and to relevant professional regulators, but that is not set out in the Bill and would apply to only a fraction of people under the duty. It would not, for example, do much in religious settings, where so many of the failings are happening, and where the duty would, if constructed properly, help immensely to protect children.

IICSA was clear that failure to comply should be a criminal offence, and amendment 10 would make that the case. It proposes a fine as the appropriate sanction, which is in line with best practice overseas. Many other countries—France, Australia, parts of Canada and so on—have introduced mandatory reporting, and many have done so with criminal sanctions of this kind. While the Government will likely say that criminal sanctions could have a chilling effect that would stop people going into professions that work with children, the international evidence clearly shows that this does not happen—in the Australian state of Victoria, for instance. Professor Ben Mathews has done extensive research on mandatory reporting laws and their efficacy, which I thoroughly encourage the Minister to ask officials to examine.

The second gap relates to those who come under the duty to report. IICSA recommended that the duty should apply first to anyone working in regulated activities with children under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, and the Bill uses that criterion—tick. However, IICSA also recommended that it should apply to anyone in a position of trust over a child, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which the Bill does not include. Amendment 22 would make it so.

The Bill sets out a list of relevant activities in part 2 of schedule 8, which replicates about 90% of what is in the Sexual Offences Act. However, that missing 10% is critical; for a start, it includes sports coaches and teachers, which schedule 8 does not. Going back to my earlier example, section 22A of the Sexual Offences Act includes a very effective definition of religious leaders. Schedule 8 does include a definition of religious leaders, but requires such people to have “regular unsupervised contact” with children to be subject to the duty. That qualification will allow virtually any religious leader—be they paid clergy or a volunteer elder, like in the Jehovah’s Witnesses—to escape the duty, as very few have regular unsupervised contact with children, despite being in a significant position of power and influence.

I personally know at least one person who was sexually abused as a child in that organisation. When they went to speak to religious leaders about it, in the presence of their parents—not unsupervised—they were advised that going to the police would mean bringing reproach on God’s name. So no report was made, by either the victim or their family, or by those religious elders. That is commonplace.

Under the Bill as drafted, there is no sanction for that. Those elders are not mandated reporters; even if they were, the proposed offence in clause 73 of stopping someone else from making a report—an offence I very much welcome, for the record—applies only to other mandated reporters. If, therefore, someone pressures a victim or their parents not to make a report, that will not be illegal. That offence needs to be broadened, too.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is calling for the Government to consider a broader offence of concealing child sexual abuse, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration. I will give more detail on that later, if there is time.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making very important points, in particular on the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. One of the methods Jehovah’s Witnesses use to ensure that issues like this do not escape from the organisation is threatening individuals with the act of disfellowshipping—being cut off from all communication with their own family. I wonder whether he will go a little further in recognising that, too.

[Sam Carling]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am very pleased that other hon. Members in the House are aware of that issue, which is something I am trying to do some work on separately. It is certainly relevant to what I am discussing. To give the House a little more context on that, through the act of disfellowshipping, when the organisation decides that someone has committed a serious sin, it can essentially tell all their family and friends to cut them off permanently; the same applies if an individual chooses simply to leave the religion. Disfellowshipping is very rarely applied to perpetrators of crimes, and is more often applied to the victims who report them. It is an enormous problem that has to be dealt with, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Member further on that.

As I highlighted on Second Reading, the Australian royal commission that investigated the organisation’s handling of abuse cases found that while allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1,006 individuals in Australia alone, not a single one was reported to the police. We must tighten up this definition and ensure that it includes religious leaders. The Government could do so by amending the definition in paragraph 17 of part 2 of schedule 8, and by adding a further item to the list in relation to sports professionals to deal with that point as well. However, the much neater and stronger legislative solution would be to just do what IICSA said, and refer to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the definition therein, which amendment 22 seeks to do.

The third problem relates to what triggers the duty to report. IICSA recommended that the duty should apply in three cases: first, when a mandated reporter is told by a child or perpetrator that abuse has taken place; secondly, when they see it happening; and thirdly, when they observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse, which can range from things like a child being pregnant or having a sexually transmitted infection to other, more subjective indicators. Our Bill scores two out of three, as it does not include the third point on recognised indicators, which are also referred to as reasonable suspicion.

Overwhelmingly, children do not report abuse that is being done to them at the time that the abuse is happening. Those who do report tend to do so years after it happens, when it is far too late to protect them and far too late, in many cases, to catch the perpetrator and stop them harming other children.

The Australian royal commission in 2015 found that the average time for someone to disclose child sexual abuse was 22 years after it happened, so including reasonable suspicion is critical, and that is what my amendment 11 would do. Given the potentially subjective judgments needed in that case, amendment 11 would exempt the case of recognised indicators from criminal sanctions for non-compliance, which is also what IICSA recommended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will continue, because I need to cover other amendments that have been tabled.

On amendment 11, assessing the signs and indications of abuse can be complex and subjective, particularly for the very large number of non-experts that this duty will apply to, many of whom are engaging with children infrequently or irregularly. We have therefore chosen to focus the duty on scenarios in which a reporter has been given an unambiguous reason to believe that they are in receipt of an allegation of child sexual abuse.

Amendment 22 seeks to add a reference to the legislative definition of “positions of trust” in schedule 7. However, a person occupies a position of trust only in relation to specific sexual offences committed against a specific child, and the term’s value as a definition for a reporter of abuse is therefore limited. The amendment also has the potential to create confusing duplication, given the significant overlap between regulated activity with children and positions of trust. The list of activities in schedule 7 has been drawn up to set out activities involving positions of trust that may not be adequately covered by the definition of regulated activity. The Government will of course keep this list under review, and amend it if necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke to amendment 20, which relates to the new broader offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm in clause 95. She made a very passionate speech on this issue, and I know that she, too, has met the Minister to discuss it in recent days. On sentencing, the courts must already consider the circumstances of each case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and follow relevant guidelines set by the independent Sentencing Council. Where a defendant has previous convictions, this is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing.

On whether a charge of murder should be brought in the circumstances set out in the amendment, I have to say to my hon. Friend that the amendment is wholly inconsistent with the criminal offence of murder, which has different elements that must be met before a person can be convicted. That said, it is important to recognise that where the encouragement or assistance results in suicide, the separate offence of encouraging or assisting suicide applies; manslaughter may be charged if there is a direct link between the abuse and the suicide.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke to amendment 161, which aims to delete clause 114. The clause will allow the police to impose conditions on a protest near a place of worship if the police have a reasonable belief that the protest may deter individuals from accessing the place of worship for religious activities, even if that effect is not intended. That gives the police total clarity on how and when they can protect places of worship, while respecting the right to peaceful protest.

A number of hon. and right hon. Members spoke about spiking, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), as well as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who tabled amendment 19. Before I say anything else, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue for many years, including families and campaign groups. Richard Graham, a former Member of this House, was a pioneer of the case for bringing forward a spiking amendment.

As discussed in Committee, the offence as drafted already captures a wide range of criminal behaviours, which cover both spiking and non-spiking incidents; for example, it covers the victim being pepper sprayed. As for the reference to a specific intent to “injure, aggrieve or annoy”, that wording is of long standing and has been widely interpreted by the courts. Every case will be judged on the facts. For instance, if someone administers a harmful substance as a prank, they would likely be found to have intended to “annoy” or “aggrieve”. The broadness of the new offence, and the increase in the maximum penalty as compared to the penalty for the existing offence under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is, in the Government’s view, sufficient. Introducing recklessness as an alternative to intent risks over-complicating the law and is unnecessary for securing appropriate convictions.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spent a lot of time looking at this issue, so I want to address it. The spiking clause in the Bill is modelled on the offence under the 1861 Act, which does not have a recklessness test. In the 2004 case of Gantz, an intention to “loosen up” the victim—he referred to that intention in the example he gave today—was covered; it may be helpful for him to reflect on that. We also understand that as recently as last month, a person was convicted of spiking another person “as a joke”. We therefore deem that the inclusion of “recklessness” is unnecessary to ensure the appropriate convictions that we are looking for with this new offence. However, we are very happy to continue to have conversations about this to ensure that we get the law absolutely right.

Many other speeches were made today that I would like to comment on, but I am running swiftly out of time. In my earlier comments, I referred to amendments 4 to 8 from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). I fully understand why amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), but those who cycle have a duty to do so safely and in accordance with the highway code, and they are wholly responsible and liable for their actions.

In conclusion, I hope that in the light of the responses I have given to the amendments today, Members will not press them. I commend new clause 52 to the House.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The decisions about which areas are looked into, and how many, will be matters for the commission. We envisage the commission lasting for three years. I know that the Leader of the Opposition suggested two years, but we think it will need around three years to be able to pursue the scale of work that is needed. I think it is right that the final decisions are ones for the commission and the independent national inquiry itself, and it will be able to look anywhere across England and Wales and to pursue the evidence wherever it sees fit.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for the robust measures she has laid out. Can she reaffirm the commitment that the Government made in January that the IICSA recommendations relevant to the Home Office will be implemented in full?

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, I can. That work is either completed or well under way.

Anti-social Behaviour: East of England

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alice Macdonald]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I totally agree. I will come on to the importance of a visible police presence later in my speech. As I said, the city councils have had to lock the gates of parks. Just today, the Feed cafe, a brilliant social enterprise in Waterloo Park in Norwich North, spoke out because it had suffered vandalism again. The manager said that they felt targeted and intimidated. They called for CCTV, which is something that the local council and I will back.

Derelict sites have also become hotspots for antisocial behaviour. Very sadly, a huge blaze broke out a few weeks ago at an empty shoe factory in Dibden Road. Seventeen fire crews had to attend from across the county. Thankfully, nobody was hurt, but derelict sites such as this one are too often not properly secured.

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

In my constituency, I get regular reports of antisocial behaviour in Pleasurefair Meadow carpark and Stanham Way, relating to the screeching of tyres from motorbikes, loud music until the early hours of the morning and constant instances of drugs and antisocial drinking. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take this sort of antisocial behaviour seriously wherever it is happening and that the local residents should not have to put up with it?

[Alice Macdonald]

I completely agree. Sometimes antisocial behaviour can be dismissed as trivial incidents, but we all know that they are not trivial and that they cause a real disturbance to many of our residents. I also know that my constituents are continually frustrated by antisocial and inconsiderate parking. I am sure that other Members here also have issues raised with them on that, whether it is obstructing pavements or blocking driveways. Indeed, research by the British Parking Association in the last few years has revealed that this is one of the biggest frustrations British people experience in their daily lives.

I want to be clear that Norwich is a great place to live; indeed, we have seen communities rallying round to support each other after antisocial behaviour. But a small minority can cause misery for many, so I welcome the measures that the Government set out yesterday in the Crime and Policing Bill. I particularly welcome the new powers for police to seize vehicles causing havoc in our city centres, removing the prior need for a warning to be given. Recently, e-bikes and e-scooters have been subject to a police crackdown in Norwich, with 12 of them being seized in just one day.

The new respect orders will also give the police and local councils powers to ban persistent offenders from town centres or from drinking in public places, such as high streets and parks. That will make a real difference in areas such as Prince of Wales Road in Norwich. It is home to a lot of vibrant nightlife, but businesses there have often made complaints about antisocial behaviour. I hope the Minister can reassure us that for serious and persistent offenders who affect our constituents day after day, respect orders will indeed give authorities the powers they need.

Of course, many of these measures will only be effective if we have police on the streets to enforce them. I pay tribute to the police and police staff in Norwich and Norfolk, and across the country, who work really hard. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers, with a named and contactable officer in every community. I have met many of the local officers in our area through safer neighbourhoods teams meetings and they work incredibly hard, but often they are stretched to cover the areas they are supposed to cover.

I welcome the fact that the Government have increased police funding by £1.1 billion, which is a 4.1% increase in real terms, including funding to kickstart the recruitment of new officers. Norfolk Constabulary is set to receive £235 million in 2025, which is an increase of £12.8 million on 2024. However, can the Minister reassure me that the recruitment of 13,000 neighbourhood officers and the funding package being provided will result in more police officers on Norfolk streets, so our residents can see and be reassured by their presence?

Under the Conservatives, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country, but I know that Labour is determined to change that. However, there are still real challenges. The chair of Norfolk Police Federation spoke out earlier this year about the difficulties facing the police forces in our county, including officers leaving or having to take time away from the workplace because of the huge pressures being placed on them. Could the Minister also talk about the action we are taking to support the police at work and address retention issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing such an important debate. My constituents have great pride in our community. The marriage of town and country was the vision behind Welwyn Garden City, and Hatfield is a new town that blends hundreds of years of history, such as Hatfield House, with a spirit of innovation as the home of the world’s first jet airliner. Antisocial behaviour is damaging because it chips away at that sense of pride in our communities. Instead of embracing public spaces, people are forced indoors, not looking outwards. They lock the doors to try to stay safe at home.

Like other hon. Members, I hear too many stories of how antisocial behaviour takes its toll on my constituents. I have heard of rocks being thrown at family homes, public urination on street corners, and a banned breed of dog locked up, rarely walked and behaving menacingly. Perhaps most powerful of all, a 10-year-old primary school student on a fantastic visit told me that they had seen a pensioner nearly knocked over by an off-road bike being illegally raced through one of our parks; the incident had made them worried to go to the King George V playing fields in Welwyn Garden City. It is time for action, and this Government get that.

[Sam Carling]

We have that problem with off-road bikes as well e-scooters on pavements. I receive regular complaints from my constituents about them being used improperly, often putting elderly people at great risk because they cannot move out of the way quickly enough when one whizzes up behind them. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take that sort of antisocial behaviour seriously? Does he welcome, as I do, the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that will help police seize those vehicles?

[Andrew Lewin]

I absolutely do. My hon. Friend is right to talk about older people being vulnerable to e-scooters, but I think also of young families, mums and dads with prams and babies. I have heard some horror stories about their experiences. I completely endorse what he said.

The Government are taking action. I was delighted to see the Crime and Policing Bill pass Second Reading yesterday. I shall briefly highlight three of its measures, some of which have already been referenced, that could make a difference in Welwyn and Hatfield. First, the Bill will give police the power to seize bikes or vehicles immediately, removing the need for a warning. That is an important change. If bikes or e-scooters are being ridden irresponsibly, let us get them straight off the road.

Secondly, respect orders will give local councils and police powers to ban persistent offenders from town centres, or from drinking in public spaces such as high streets and local parks. Crucially, failure to comply with a respect order will be a criminal offence, so police will have the power to arrest people in breach straight away. Finally and perhaps most important is the manifesto commitment Labour made to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood police community support officers across the country, with a focus on targeting the most prolific offenders.

Welwyn Hatfield is at its best when the streets are bustling and people come together, feeling both security and pride in the place they call home. This Labour Government understand how much that matters to people, and why tackling antisocial behaviour locally and nationally is rightly a priority.