Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding

Debate between Sam Carling and Jim Shannon

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.

Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Debate between Sam Carling and Jim Shannon

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. Does he not agree that the recent EU-Mercosur deal opens the EU market to increased imports of agricultural products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol under tariff-rate quotas? That may well mean sacrificing quality for cash, and may have an unwanted knock-on effect for our farmers. The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to save and look after our farmers, who are already under immense pressure. On that deal, the UK Government must make representations to the EU regarding food safety.

[Sam Carling]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point well. I will touch on EU regulations later.

Our Labour Government have a stellar record on this issue so far. In negotiations with India, we refused to lower protections on goods such as pork, chicken and eggs. In talks with Korea, we have secured new commitments on animal welfare, stronger than any it has signed up to in any previous trade agreement. The next step is to equalise all our import standards, rather than just the standards for new agreements. We cannot go back to full alignment with the EU, either. The EU still allows sow stalls, foie gras and fur farming, all of which fall short of our standards. Switzerland successfully negotiated an animal welfare carve-out in its sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are seeking similar exemptions for animal welfare in the UK-EU negotiations. That would ensure we retained the ability to restrict imports that do not meet British welfare standards.

Let me address any arguments about the impact on food prices that changes could have. Over the past few years, food inflation has hit households across the country, and we all want prices to be more affordable, but I think we can all agree that that should not come at the expense of high standards. In the long run, undercutting our farmers will lessen our food security, leaving us more dependent on less reliable markets overseas, and as the Government have repeatedly said, food security is national security. That means that we must defend our farmers from a flood of low-quality imports.