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.

Crime and Policing Bill

Sam Carling Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I enormously welcome this Bill, in which there is so much that will make a real, positive difference for my constituents in North West Cambridgeshire. Due to time constraints, I will have to skip through a lot of the praise I had for the Bill and move straight to an area where I would like to have a conversation and a dialogue with the Minister about what we can do, and that is the area of mandatory reporting.

I enormously welcome the fact that this Bill will finally introduce a statutory duty to report the possible sexual abuse of children when those who have responsibility for children are made aware of it. It has been a long road. In March 2018, the previous Conservative Government said the case for mandatory reporting had “not currently been made” and that they would not introduce the policy. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Alexis Jay, showed how misjudged that position was.

[Luke Myer]

I thank my hon. Friend for supporting me in my debate last week on Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church of England. Does he agree with me that, alongside the Government implementing those recommendations, it is critical that faith organisations implement them as well?

[Sam Carling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for that intervention. As a society, we must move towards ensuring that children are protected.

When it comes to the detail, I am not fully sure that the Bill, as currently drafted, delivers on the Government’s pledge to implement the IICSA recommendations. That is mainly because, on my reading, it does not create criminal sanctions for non-compliance, which was a key part of the 13th IICSA recommendation. The only consequences spelled out in the Bill for failure to report are that someone could be referred to as their professional regulator, where relevant, or to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which, to quote the Bill’s explanatory notes, will

“consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children.”

That is all really positive, but we have to go a little bit further. As currently drafted, is the Bill enough to tackle the chronic under-reporting of sexual abuse identified by the Jay inquiry?

The new offence of stopping someone else from reporting child sexual abuse is very welcome. For example, it should stop managers pressuring people who work under them not to report such abuse, but I do not think that it will cover such cases in religious groups. As an example, I would like to talk about the religious organisation in which I was raised, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most people know very little about them, but they are a very insular religious community with a deep distrust, in many cases, of secular authorities, much of which comes from the fundamental nature of some of their beliefs. Witnesses have a mindset in which the first port of call for any issues with another member of the faith is their local congregation’s body of religious elders, who are men—always men—appointed from within their ranks. The organisation denies that it stops these elders from referring allegations of sexual abuse to the police, but numbers speak louder than words.

Almost 10 years ago, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were one of the case studies examined by an Australian royal commission on institutional responses to child sexual abuse. The commission found that, in Australia alone, allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1,006 individuals, and not a single one was reported to the police. In the UK, elders sometimes say that it is a victim’s absolute right to go to the police, which is often the organisation’s response to such criticism. But behind the scenes, they heavily discourage it, telling victims that publicity would bring reproach on God’s name.

This secretive attitude is best exemplified by a recent speech by a member of the religion’s governing body: “Suppose that someone is convicted and put in jail, or someone is found guilty by men, as Jesus was. It does not mean that he is guilty in the sight of God.” I should flag that he was not specifically referring to child sexual abuse, but that attitude is pervasive. I describe this example to highlight just how critical it is that the duty to report is backed up by criminal consequences for ignoring it, because some of these organisations will do anything to avoid compliance.

Is the Minister willing to meet me to discuss this issue in more depth, and how we can address it? I would also appreciate it if she could comment on the scope of the individuals that the Bill places under a duty to report. I am not convinced at the moment that many religious leaders—who often hold very significant power and influence, as I have outlined—will be included. This goes back to the IICSA report, which recommended that the duty to report should fall on anyone who works in regulated activities, but also on anyone in a position of trust over a child, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On my reading, the Bill does the former but not the latter, as currently drafted, and addressing this by using both criteria could significantly strengthen the legislation.

I welcome this Bill, which contains very powerful provisions to progress measures outlined in the manifesto on which Labour Members stood to make our streets safer and tackle crime. I look forward to voting for it this evening.

Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Sam Carling Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree. Chelsea and Fulham may be some way from my constituency, but councils and the police working together, and consistency of approach, is precisely what will make the difference, just as he outlined.

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

My constituents regularly raise concerns about their safety when they are out and about, given the prevalence of off-road bikes being used in antisocial and illegal ways, particularly on pavements and footpaths. Such bikes are a particularly significant issue for elderly people, who might be less mobile and are therefore more likely to be involved in a collision with one. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done about these bikes to ensure that our elderly constituents can feel safer when walking around outside?

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree. Digging up pavements, creating ruts, noise and disturbance, and shooting around the corner with no warning are precisely the sorts of things that may make elderly people afraid for their safety when they are out and about, which is something that none of us wants. That is why, as we promised when we stood for election, we will recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers. Every area will have a named officer. Neighbourhood policing is coming back and we are returning funding to frontline policing, with an overall police funding increase of £1.1 billion this year. In my area of the west midlands, that is £43 million, and I hope that there is more to come.

Our new Crime and Policing Bill will give police new powers to immediately seize these bikes, which cause havoc in our communities.

Church of England: Safeguarding

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Jess Phillips]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police Funding: Cambridgeshire

Sam Carling Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, so he will know that this is the normal process. The provisional settlement is announced before Christmas, and then there is an opportunity for police forces to make further representations or to query figures. That has always been the case; there is nothing new about the process that we are using. However, as I said, it is important to note that we are having to make difficult decisions because of the inheritance we have.

Government grants are not the only source of income available to police forces. In 2025-26, PCCs in England have the flexibility to increase the precept by up to £14 for a band D equivalent property, or to go further, should they wish, by holding a local referendum. I note that the Cambridgeshire PCC has chosen to maximise precept in previous years, and subject to the decision for 2025-26, 44% of Cambridgeshire police’s settlement funding will be raised locally via the police precept.

I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon is concerned about the additional demand that a population increase may create for Cambridgeshire police, but I ask him to consider the positive impact that such an increase may have on the council tax base and, as a result, the income that will be generated locally by the PCC. In response to his question about reviewing the funding formula, and on the delivery of this Government’s safer streets mission, we have been clear that broader policing reform is necessary to address the challenges faced by policing, and to help the system deliver effective and efficient policing to the public.

I note the contributions that have been made about the changing face of crime in this country, and the challenges that police forces face. That is why we have clearly set out a reform agenda. The allocation of funding to police forces remains an important consideration in that reform work. Phase 2 of the spending review will give us an opportunity to consider police funding in the medium term, ensuring that it aligns with our programme of reform and delivery of the safer streets mission.

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

I really welcome the increase in police funding for Cambridgeshire. I understand the concerns being raised. A lot of growth is happening in and around Cambridgeshire. Can the Minister reassure me that her Department will have the relevant conversations with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and others, to ensure that we show residents how we are supporting police growth as the population expands?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

I will quickly address the issue of neighbourhood policing. I am sure that we can all agree that public confidence in policing is always better when the police are visible, and when there are officers in the heart of communities, building real relationships with the people they serve. There are many ways for the public to contact the police, but we hear consistently that the public value a local, visible policing presence. That is why we are committed to rebuilding neighbourhood policing after it was decimated over the previous 14 years. A named, contactable police officer for every community will be a key part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee. We will set out exactly what the public can expect from their neighbourhood policing teams. As I said, we have kick-started our commitment with £100 million of funding next year to start the work of putting 13,000 police back in our communities.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon again on securing the debate, and all Members who contributed to it. Whether we look at this through a national or local lens, policing resourcing matters. It matters to the brave and hard-working officers and staff who work every day to keep the rest of us safe, and to the communities they serve, whether in Cambridgeshire, with its rural and urban areas, or anywhere else. That is why we set out in the provisional funding settlement our intention to make a very substantial investment in policing, and it is why we are working closely with forces to equip them for the challenges that they face, and to deliver our safer streets mission. We are already making progress, and will drive it further with our investment in neighbourhood policing in this settlement.

Question put and agreed to.

Freight Crime

Sam Carling Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Taylor]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that regionally and nationally we need more emphasis on this crime. If the Government are to achieve their mission to kickstart economic growth and take back our streets, they must treat freight crime with the seriousness that it deserves.

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

My constituency has around 12,000 employees in the wholesale and retail trade sector, many of whom will be affected by freight crime. Indeed, the recent report by the APPG on freight and logistics named Peterborough as a key freight crime hotspot. Does my hon. Friend agree that measures to tackle freight crime are long overdue, and are essential for our plans to back British business?

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention, which I agree with. I was proud recently to launch the “Securing Our Supply Chains” report with the APPG and the Road Haulage Association, and I would like to raise its recommendations. The report highlights the clear damage that freight crime is doing to the UK economy. In 2023, there were 5,370 reports of heavy goods vehicle and cargo crime in the UK, and £68.3 million-worth of goods was stolen in freight crime. It is likely that £1 billion has been lost since 2020 due to this serious crime.

The report lays bare the stark issues affecting one of Britain’s most vital industries, in which 90% of businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises. It also makes it clear that the police do not feel adequately equipped to tackle freight crime. Such crime is not opportunistic; it is serious organised crime and that is why freight criminals target service stations, which have become freight crime hotspots.

The National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service has identified several service stations that are repeatedly targeted by freight criminals, including Corley services on the M6 in my constituency. In 2023 alone, Corley services experienced 76 offences of freight crime. Other crime hotspots include Stafford, which had 138 offences; Thurrock, which had 103 offences; and Warwick services, which experienced 87 offences. It is clear to me, as it should be to all Members present, that that means criminals have organised effectively to target certain service stations repeatedly. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Transport to improve service station security for freight drivers?

Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation

Sam Carling Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am happy to check out the report, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to set out the Government’s measures to deal with this issue. I share my colleagues’ amazement about the new-found concern of Conservative Members—[Interruption.] I am not sure why the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) is heckling. This time last year, under the Conservative Government, we had more than 400 hotels and more than 21,000 hotel rooms in use for asylum seekers, and we were spending £8 million a day on hotels. Does the Minister agree that although the Conservatives were apparently happy with that, this Labour Government are not, and we are taking steps to deal with their mess?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Clearly, we begin from the situation that we found when we came into office. In this case, the system was in chaos, with a Rwanda scheme that was an unworkable and massively expensive distraction, which meant that no processing of any of the asylum claims made from March 2023 was happening. We have a huge backlog. We have had to switch the system, and divert resources from a failed Rwanda scheme into processing and the border security command, so that we can deal with the causes of the problem, rather than pretending that it does not exist.