Child Sexual Offender Data

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have listened carefully to the debate. Child sexual abuse is one of the most despicable crimes. We absolutely need to pay attention to the victims; I pay tribute to those of you sitting in the Public Gallery today who are victims and thank you for attending. I understand that what you have heard today may well have triggered you to re-experience the things you suffered as children, and some of you, perhaps, as adults. We Liberal Democrats will support any measure that goes some way to deliver justice for the victims and prevent these horrific acts from occurring again in the future.

I was one of the seven cross-party MPs who approached Theresa May after being elected in 2010 and who spent time trying to persuade her of the merits of having the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It took a long time to persuade her, and then it took further time to persuade her not to use the chairs she had chosen, because they were, or might have been perceived as, part of the infrastructure of the very problem we were trying to face, and that there was institutional abuse across many of our accepted centres of power.

I want to accentuate the fact that child sexual abuse is all about the abuse of power and that relationships are absolutely catastrophic when someone removes the power from an individual. There are a number of ways of removing power, and I will move straight to asking the Minister whether she would consider using some of the academic research in this field. Amnesty International has leaned quite hard on something called Biderman’s framework of coercion—Biderman spoke about it in 1957 and Amnesty International released it in 1975—which talks about the use and abuse of power and of coercive control in particular, and about the isolation of victims, the monopolisation of perspectives, the induced debility and exhaustion that victims suffer, the threats they are subject to, the occasional indulgences, or treats, that make them feel they might be special, the business of abusers—perpetrators—demonstrating omnipotence, the degradation of victims, and very often the enforcement of trivial demands just to absolutely enforce the power of the perpetrator over the victim. The perpetrators are always responsible. There is no one under the age of 16 who can consent, and many over the age of 16 cannot either. The word “rape” itself suggests there should be no consent, but no one under the age of 16 can consent anyway.

My party and I agree absolutely that we should collect data on nationality and ethnicity, and share it where it is appropriate to do so, but I draw Members’ attention to the fact that that has started to happen. I certainly have some evidence in front of me that reflects that that data is being collected. Whether it is being shared or not, I do not know, but we certainly need to make sure that the CPS, judges, magistrates, teachers and lecturers, schools generally, health staff, council staff—particularly those in adult social care and children’s social care, and housing officers—as well as the police, are absolutely required to collect data and share it. There should be compulsory training for all those in the positions that I have just listed.

Coercive control should not be viewed as something that applies only in a situation of domestic abuse. Victims of coercive control need to be heard. We need to recognise the signs of coercion and people need to be trained to recognise them.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

A few moments ago, my hon. Friend mentioned data. The House of Commons Library has compiled some information from 2021 to 2025, which shows that the single largest ethnic group of perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom was white British men, who were responsible for 58.35% of all such incidents. I do not say that to reinforce points that have already been made; I do so to emphasise the second most prominent category of ethnicity, which is simply “Unknown”. That data shadow is shameful. It fails the victims of child sexual exploitation, but it also creates the space in which speculation and distrust have been allowed to flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need not only to gather better data, but to robustly and systematically analyse it, in order to finally allow the truth about child sexual exploitation to be brought out into the light?

[Tessa Munt]

Absolutely. Earlier, somebody said that sunlight was the best disinfectant, and I agree absolutely.

I have here the ethnicity figures for those who have had proceedings brought against them. As I understand it, in the last five years, 989 offenders were of Asian background, which is 8% of offenders. That compares with 12,157 people of white British origin who had proceedings brought against them. Those of white British origin who were sentenced numbered 8,730; that figure was 622 for those of Asian origin.

I am not in any way decrying what has happened to anyone who has been abused, but I speak from personal experience: I declared quite openly in a previous Parliament that I was a victim of child sex abuse. It happened to me between the ages of 12 and 17. I am very lucky, because I had an enormous amount of support, both from counsellors and from my family. I am not over it, but there are ways that you can survive and thrive, and I came here in 2010 with that in the back of my head. I wanted to make sure that it came to the fore in that Parliament, and it did, but I am not finished, and that is why I am back here now.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Lady has come out with quite a few interesting bits of data. I wonder if she has any data on how many white British working-class girls have been systematically raped.

[Tessa Munt]

I have not, but I was looking in particular at ethnicity, which is what—[Interruption.] Forgive me; I was referring to the petition of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) presented today on his behalf. I think it is a very good thing that the hon. Member created the petition, and I salute him for doing so, because anything that brings information into the public domain is a good thing. I feel terribly strongly about that, as people probably will have seen from previous contributions I have made in Parliament.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for her bravery and for being an example for survivors. I pay tribute to her and all those who have experienced this abuse. There is hope, and they should reach out and have faith, but we need to make sure that the authorities listen to their voices and take them seriously.

[Tessa Munt]

This is absolutely not about me. All I would say is that I am an example of how you can come through and do something, but my God I have been frustrated watching the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which eventually turned into Professor Jay’s recommendations, about which absolutely nothing was done for some time. We need to proceed and make sure that all 20 of those recommendations, and Baroness Casey’s recommendations, are implemented. I am aware that the Government are doing stuff, but they are never fast enough, and this just needs to happen.

I feel very strongly that we need to train all the people I mentioned, including the judges, the teachers and the police—crikey, the police!—so that they understand what coercive control is. They also need to recognise what can be done to challenge what is colloquially referred to as the “manosphere”. Two or three weeks ago, I met a young woman and two of her friends, and she complained about the fact that boys in her school—she was young—had said to her that she could not tell them what to do because she was a girl. This has to stop, because it just feeds this whole thing. Women have been down-trodden for many, many years. Now we are brave enough to speak out, and we have to make sure that those who are in authority have the ability to tell us because they understand, not ask us because we do. I want to make certain that we have that compulsory training in place. We need to challenge toxic masculinity. I recognise that it is triggering to everybody when this stuff comes up, but I hope above all hopes that you are able to sleep with a little more peace tonight.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members not to address the Public Gallery, but to speak through the Chair.

[Tessa Munt]

I am sorry. I hope that the members of the public who have suffered are able to sleep a little more peacefully, but we need data collection and sharing. We just need to bring some rigour and force to what we are doing. Lots of people have looked at this over a period of years.

If I have time to make one more small point, I want to bring in the subject of religion. I am particularly interested in religion because, as far as I can tell, there is no mechanism for collecting data on belief systems, faith systems or whatever. We have only to look at the census of 2011, when, certainly in my neck of the woods, we had masses of people refer to themselves as Jedi. What people choose to call themselves in religious terms is absolutely up to interpretation, and I am not entirely sure that there is a way of making that data clean.

Experience tells me that, if we bring religion into this, in the near past we would have been looking at the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, where some of the most appalling things happened to people, and at the fact that that power was vested in people who had positions in the Church, as they do in youth movements and other places. I do not know whether it is possible to hold religious data or whether there is a real purpose to that. I am not sure that we can get anywhere with that, but I recognise that nationality and ethnicity data is useful and helpful.

On immigration status data, I know that the Home Secretary has the power to remove people, so that data may look a bit squiff if people are being deported, as they are. There are several ways in which the Home Secretary can remove people in different situations, so we may find that those figures are going down. They may not be useful or show the whole picture, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

The Liberal Democrats will support anything that improves the situation for victims. We have to remember the victims in all this, and we have to protect children into the future. As I said, I hope that victims can sleep a little better every time they hear a debate like this—something will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie Fleet]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I absolutely will come to that as part of this speech.

Let me assert once more the Government’s unwavering commitment to delivering all the recommendations set out in Baroness Casey’s national audit, which exposed more than a decade of institutional failure. This was, without question, one of the darkest episodes in our country’s history, and every part of the state bears a responsibility to ensure that this is never repeated.

Baroness Casey was rightly clear that the collection of suspect ethnicity data in grooming gang cases is poor. We agree and we are acting. That is why in July last year, the then Home Secretary wrote to all chief constables setting out the expectation that ethnicity data should be collected from all suspects in child sexual exploitation cases, and to urge them to make sure that they are fulfilling that obligation. We continue to work with policing colleagues to improve data collection and analysis. But incredibly importantly, we are legislating to give the Home Secretary the power to mandate the collection of ethnicity data by police officers. The police reform White Paper, published in January, set out our intention to put data standards for policing, including in this area, on a statutory footing.

I say clearly to all those who signed the petition: the Government will legislate to ensure that we fix this issue. Baroness Casey was clear that given the evidence available in some local areas, we need better ethnicity and nationality data at a national level to strengthen understanding and accountability. We will follow that evidence without fear or favour, and we will not let cultural sensitivities stand in our way. The Home Secretary said it best last December:

“We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men, as well as those in positions of authority who looked the other way, must not be allowed to marginalise or demonise entire communities of law-abiding citizens.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 179.]

Members will be aware that the Government set up the independent inquiry into grooming gangs earlier this year. I am proud to be part of a Government who are delivering on this incredibly important work to uncover the truth. The inquiry has begun its crucial work to give survivors of these horrific crimes long-awaited answers. It will have a laser focus on grooming gangs, including the role that ethnicity, religion and culture played in these terrible crimes. It has a budget of £65 million, and the chair has confirmed that the funding is sufficient to deliver the inquiry. The inquiry has been designed to be time-limited for three years. That is long enough to go deep into where it matters the most, with a definitive end date to get the answers that victims and survivors need.

Separately, the Government are also making sure that everything we do is underpinned by evidence. I welcome Members sending me any additional research and information they have in this area. If the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), could send me that it would be fantastic.

[Tessa Munt]

indicated assent.

[Natalie Fleet]

Thank you.

We will look at research, including on the role that ethnicity, culture and religion play in group-based offending so that our response can lead to lasting, systemic change that everybody in this House, including the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), is right to call for today.

[Natalie Fleet]

It absolutely is, and I will come on to that.

[Tessa Munt]

I cannot remember whether I mentioned this—my notes have gone, although I did not follow them anyway. I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to small religious groups, which is the terminology I use to describe what most of us would probably call “cults”. We should make sure that is a focus of some attention in the inquiry, because children of both genders and vulnerable adults are forced into situations over which they have very little control. It is that power dynamic.

[Natalie Fleet]

I give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan).

Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 General Committees

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

I want to be really clear: the Liberal Democrats support the statutory instruments, but we wonder why it has taken so many years for them to come forward. Why has it taken two years of this Government for the statutory instruments to reach Parliament? Given that the substances were added between March 2014 and March 2024 but are only now coming into UK legislation, what steps is the Home Office taking to speed up future legislative action? How will the Government make sure that we remain consistent with international agreements in future?

Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[Jess Phillips]

I am more than happy to look directly into that case. My hon. Friend highlights an important problem: we need clarity about who is responsible in the system. First and foremost, if child abuse in an institution is raised with anyone, it should be reported to the police, with the support of the victim. I do not know the details of that case, but I will come on to the issues that my hon. Friend raised about the Charity Commission. As a constituency MP, I have had to raise such issues with the Charity Commission. We need to ensure that the regime of regulation in our charitable sector is as robust as it can be on safeguarding, as well as on financial irregularity and other things. I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend said.

[Tessa Munt]

If I may, I would like to explore what happens with the Minister. There is mistrust of external agencies, and in a lot of these small, high-demand religious organisations—those that look like cults—people may not realise that they have any capacity or agency to report.

[Jess Phillips]

With the mandatory reporting duty, a huge body of work will go into guidance about how to report. However small—however nervous—they are covered by the duty.

I have only three minutes still to speak. To the issue of faith-based charities promoting misogyny, I hear the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire. The Charity Commission has apparently reviewed the National Secular Society report on religious charities promoting misogyny and confirmed that it has already assessed and responded to a number of incidents. I will follow up on that action, and I will gladly meet him once I have a fully robust answer. He invites me to annoy, I suppose, the Treasury—I do not think he used those words—but I agree with him that, as in the examples he gave, the idea that an organisation can promote the hatred of women or the supplication of people’s wives and also be considered a charity is an alien one. I will follow up on that.

Furthermore, as the Prime Minister announced recently, the Government are already working with the commission on plans to give it additional powers to help tackle extremist abuse, which will bar anyone convicted of hate crimes from serving as a trustee and make it easier for the commission to act against anyone undertaking that. The changes will be made after a public consultation that is coming this month, which I invite everybody to take part in.

I will speak to the Department of Health and Social Care on medical coercion. I do not lead on that as a Minister, but I do not disagree with my hon. Friend that people must be able to make those decisions in full view.

I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions. I promise that we will continue to try to work together, because we all want the same thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Disclosure and Barring Service

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People have to pay extra to be part of the update system. Why would anyone pay extra to put themselves under additional scrutiny? Why is that not automatic?

The other option, which has been suggested by some, is that the Government could consider a right to ask/right to know process for family members. That would ensure that the public could not have free and easy access to information that could be risky, but if they had a concern, there would be a route for them to find out. We were simply stonewalled every time that we tried to find out whether this teacher had been registered and whether those allegations had been made.

Let me turn to another situation, which has come up on a number of occasions, relating to people who are caring for family members. DBS checks currently have to be undertaken by an employer, a registered organisation or an umbrella organisation. That increases costs, adds delays and makes it more complex for families using direct payments for the care of disabled children and for those starting the journey of caring for an elderly relative.

Laura contacted me about the direct payments that she receives to fund the care of her son, noting that she cannot directly access DBS checks. She said that

“my very vulnerable son, quadriplegic with cerebral palsy and profound multiple learning disabilities has a team of 15 carers none of whom have DBS checks.”

She asks why the law does not allow parents to carry out DBS checks on carers, who are

“working often alone in our home”.

Another constituent, Sandra, is in a similar position. She said:

“We had a carer a few years ago, who had been lone working with our daughter at night for over a year, with a current DBS check. We had a call from Child Protective Services—the carer had tried to smother her own child”.

They later discovered that the reason why the carer’s other child lived with grandparents was because she had tried to smother the older child, and they had been removed from her care. The man from the child protection services said, “It probably should have been on her DBS,” but it was not. As a result, Sandra said, “What is the point? There is no reason for me to get a DBS check—it would not have protected my child.”

I have also been contacted by Louise, from another part of Dorset, who approached me due to my dementia champion work. After her husband Richard was diagnosed with dementia, she decided to try to care for him at home. Her job meant that she went away for a few days at a time, and she felt that the best option was to find a carer to stay in her home with Richard. My colleagues in Somerset may remember this story, as it was in the local paper.

Louise’s experience led to her starting a campaign for Richard’s law, which I said that I would take up. The law has three simple pillars—so simple that I was shocked they were not already in place. Those three pillars are mandatory registration of all care workers; mandatory enhanced DBS checks, with all carers required to join the update service; and mandatory, nationally recognised training for care staff in first aid, medication compliance, manual handling, dementia awareness and safeguarding. I find it hard to believe that a person can be a carer without all of those things being in place.

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

What my hon. Friend has said puts me in mind of another case in a village not far from where I live, where a cleaner was systematically thieving from elderly and vulnerable residents. This went on for years, and every time the person nearly got caught or was interviewed by the police, they just left their job and moved on. This is exactly why we need to do something to make the system far better, because elderly and vulnerable people have no way to be absolutely certain that when they give somebody their card to get some money so that they can pay the carer, something will not go desperately wrong and the rest of their money will not disappear.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Today, the headline in the Bournemouth Echo is about another case involving a carer, who stole £125,000 from an elderly person. The case I am describing is not a one-off.

Louise told me about a carer who was coming into her home and who she had trusted. The basic DBS check was all she had, but after the carer stole jewellery and cash from her home, it came to light that this woman had three previous convictions for theft and obtaining property by deception, including a suspended sentence for an almost identical offence. In her victim statement, Louise said:

“I welcomed her into our home, believing she was there to help us through one of the hardest chapters of our lives. Instead, she exploited our vulnerability in the most callous way imaginable. The worst thing she stole was my trust. Her betrayal destroyed my ability to believe in the carers who were supposed to support us. I reached a breaking point where I could no longer allow outside help, and as a direct result, I had to make the heartbreaking decision to place my husband in residential care. This was never what I wanted for him, and it has changed both of our lives immeasurably, for the worse. The weight of that decision, forced upon me by her selfishness, is something I carry every day.”

Sadly, Richard Woollam died on Boxing day—Louise contacted me a few days later to tell me that I had not managed to have this debate while he was still with us. However, it seems shocking that family carers who are already sacrificing so much are unable to access DBS checks for those who are coming into their homes, and that someone who is providing such personal care is not automatically required to have such checks and training. Provision of personal registration would allow those who are working directly for their employers—be they carers, cleaners, tutors, babysitters, drivers or personal trainers—to provide security for families, particularly families who are home educating their children, and to work across multiple employers with ease.

Finally, over the past few months, we in this place have spoken on numerous occasions about improving the service provided by Government agencies. From two-year waits for shotgun licences to nine-month delays in responses to MPs’ letters to the Department for Work and Pensions—if the Minister is listening, I have been waiting since February for an answer to a simple request—and a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency that does not bother to chase doctors’ letters at all, I have been shocked by the poor service experienced by my residents in times of need.

Where an enhanced DBS check is needed for an employee to take up their position, it is so important that it is processed swiftly. In theory, such checks should be completed within a fortnight, but in Dorset, the police are advising that delays can be up to 100 days. Daniel from Wareham has explained that this problem is impacting his ability to move forward with professional opportunities. He said that when he worked abroad, background checks often came back within a few hours, and that the

“current manual processes just feel so outdated and inefficient, especially when so many people—students and employees alike—need these certificates to do their jobs or continue their studies.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) very much for securing this debate on an important issue. I am grateful to her and to all others who have contributed this evening. A good amount of ground has been covered, even in the relatively short time available, so I will respond to the various points that have been made.

First, I ask for the House’s indulgence as I set out some of the factual background of the Disclosure and Barring Service. The wider disclosure and barring regime is there to protect children and vulnerable adults through the disclosure of relevant criminal records, helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions about the suitability of an individual to work with those groups. It does so through criminal record checks, with the standard, enhanced and enhanced with barred lists levels. Increasing criminal record information is disclosed at each level. The roles and activities that are eligible for the higher-level criminal records check are set out in legislation owned by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. During the last reported year, the DBS issued a total of 7.2 million certificates.

The regime also allows for barring by the DBS of those who are considered to pose a risk, as has been covered. If someone is barred, they cannot work in what is defined as regulated activity in our legislation. As has been identified, regulated activity and institutions that are regulated are two different things—I make that completely clear. Examples of regulated activity include teaching, supervising children and providing health and personal care to children and adults. It does not matter whether it is voluntary or otherwise. Through the relevant arrangements, the DBS ensures that those it has barred cannot work in those roles and have access to vulnerable groups. The DBS’s most recent annual report states that 104,000 individuals are on its children and adults barred lists. I should note that the disclosure and barring regime is not, as has been pointed out, a vetting regime.

The disclosure and barring regime focuses on providing employers with information on people, whether that is criminal records, relevant police information or barred list status. This can support robust suitability decisions while allowing ex-offenders to get back into work and employment. As Parliament and the public would expect, the regime is kept under review to ensure that it is effectively delivering on its key objectives, and I am always keen to hear suggestions, especially those, as laid out by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, that are based in real life—IRL, as my children would say—with regard to our constituents.

We are bringing in changes to respond to the DBS-related recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. First, a measure in the Crime and Policing Bill will prevent those on the barred list from working closely with children, even in supervised roles working alongside somebody with a DBS certificate. Currently, if a role involving teaching, instructing or supervising children is supervised by another member of staff, it is not considered to be “regulated activity” under the legislation. This means that an employer can ask only for an enhanced DBS check, which does not include a check of the barred list. That creates a risk that a barred-list individual could work as a volunteer in a school, or as an employee in a youth club or other setting, if supervised. We agree with the inquiry that the risk is too high, and we are changing the law accordingly.

Secondly, we are enabling self-employed or personal employees to access higher-level DBS checks if they work with children or vulnerable adults. The relevant provision will come into force on Wednesday—completely coincidentally! Before we made that change, people such as private tutors or paid personal carers could only access a basic DBS check, while their counterparts in settings such as schools or care homes would be expected to obtain the highest level of DBS check.

[Tessa Munt]

Should DBS checks not have a start date and a finish date, so that people who are not particularly worldly are clear about the beginning and the end, and understand that when the end date comes, a new check will be needed?

[Jess Phillips]

I will come on to that when I pick up some of the issues of portability from one person to another. However, from Wednesday those hiring personal carers, or families engaging private tutors, will have access to the same high level of check, with the same level of information, including information about whether a person is barred by the DBS.

Thirdly, we have enabled the disclosure of an individual’s barred-list status on the international child protection certificate.

[Jess Phillips]

That is a very good question. There does seem to be a bit of a discrepancy. I know that when the hon. Lady was looking through different regulated systems to get people checked in her own area, they were found wanting. Individuals, families or those who want to employ a tutor or a carer on a self-employed basis, whether or not that involves direct payments, will have access to the enhanced check.

I pay tribute to Richard and the campaign of his brilliant wife Louise: she is absolutely on the money. The right to ask is a fundamental part of the system, and from Wednesday—give me 48 hours—parents will have that power. If I were sending my child to a tutor—which I have done, like many other people across the country—I would be able to ask whether that tutor had had an enhanced check. It may not be possible to access all the information, but it will be possible to question and scrutinise employers as well, to ensure that that is done. Parents will have that power.

As I have said, we understand that child protection is international. The ICPC, issued by the ACRO Criminal Records Office, is used for individuals who intend to work with children overseas. We changed the relevant legislation on 18 December, reducing the risk that an overseas employer could unknowingly hire a barred person to work with children and thereby meeting the third of the inquiry’s recommendations relating to the disclosure of criminal records.

Overall, our approach is underpinned by an unwavering commitment to safeguarding through the proportionate disclosure of criminal records and other relevant information. It is of course important that we listen to, and when necessary act on, any concerns raised by individuals, including Members of Parliament, and the sectors that interact with the regime.

[Tessa Munt]

The Minister refers to the fact that the DBS would be able to check whether somebody who was going to work abroad had a problem with their clearance. Will that work in reverse? For example, if someone is trying to employ an au pair from another country—I do not know if people can even do that any more—could the au pair be checked before they came in and worked with children?

[Jess Phillips]

I will get back to the hon. Lady on the specifics of that. This is about people who are barred from working with children, and ensuring that we have enhanced international knowledge sharing. In the cases raised by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the fact that it was not known that somebody had all those issues was a real failure in the system.

I want to give some attention to the requirements that the hon. Lady calls for. The Disclosure and Barring Service does one thing. It is not the regulator, and it does not regulate services; it ensures that employers have the right information. The regulation of activities sits with the relevant Departments and institutions. The rules in residential settings are different from those in the Department for Education. We need to make sure that we do not introduce regulation that means that no one can ever start any sort of group—that is certainly something we have been mindful of in our work on the duty to report cases of sexual abuse among children. However, we need to have safeguards in place. The regulation of requirements sits with the relevant individual bodies; it is not for the DBS to say what the requirements should be. However, I am absolutely open to having conversations about what should and should not be regulated when it comes to safeguarding.

I go back to where I started: regulated activity. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asks for clarity in the guidance. Regulated activity is activity that involves someone working with children and vulnerable adults. Frankly, I find it quite hard to imagine that the vast majority of the cases that she has raised would not fall under the scope of regulated activity, but I will absolutely take her point away.

Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to Lauren, whose heartbreaking case was mentioned. I speak as somebody who knows what drug addiction can do, and what it costs families. I do not know the full details, but in Lauren’s case, I would consider the activity to have been regulated activity. If someone is teaching children, they are undertaking regulated activity, and parents will have the right to ask whether enhanced checks have been undertaken.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

I do not think I can take any more interventions, because my time will run out. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, and to work with her to make sure that we get the DBS to be the best it can be, within all the regulatory frameworks that are needed.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

I will give way.

[Tessa Munt]

Madam Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that we can witter on until 10 o’clock? I believe that we are not limited.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Just to provide clarity, the Minister can indeed continue until 10 pm, but she does not have to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

We recognise that people may want to use their existing DBS check when moving from one role to another, where the new role requires a check. That is exactly the point that the hon. Lady raised. It is possible for employers to accept an existing criminal record certificate, but it must be for the same type of check in the same workforce—in the instance she has given, that would be working with children—such as enhanced with barred lists checks for the children’s workforce. This is to ensure that the appropriate level of information is available. We do not want a random DBS to have been done, and for someone to just say, “Look, I’ve got a DBS”. Over the years, I too have had more DBS checks than I can count.

On the delays, the DBS has a key performance indicator of getting 80% turnaround within 14 days, and it currently reaches 75%. It has been progressively working on that and ensuring that things are done more quickly. The enhanced check relies on police forces undertaking the work, and seven months seems like a very long time, but there can be a variety of reasons why delays may arise. However, the vast majority of checks are done within 14 days. My son had an enhanced DBS the other day, and it came back in three days. I do not think the DBS knew that he was my son.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister greatly for giving way. I want to pick up again the point I made about whether these checks will have a clear end date on them. I also have a second question, if I am allowed to ask it. I do not expect an answer now, but it would be nice to have an answer—one of the problems one finds constantly with police forces is that they are required to do checks, but they have no ability to recover the full costs through the charging system. Such a number of checks—7.2 million—will be very expensive. Do we know the cost of a single DBS check?

[Jess Phillips]

We absolutely understand that. Just to be clear, police forces are paid through the DBS system to undertake the checks. The resources are given by the DBS system to police forces to undertake that work. I will ensure that the hon. Member receives the exact cost, but it comes under the costs of the DBS.

On the issue of exactly how long a DBS check lasts, there is no one simple answer, but we should encourage more people to be part of the updating system and the checking system. This system has been heavily scrutinised over the years, and it deserves that level of scrutiny, but I have seen a real effort to make sure that it is the best and the fairest that it can be, but we are always here to work for any possible improvements.

Question put and agreed to.

Police Reform

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and talk about the services that she needs in her local community. We will of course ensure that the money we save is directed to frontline policing, because that is where it needs to be. I join her in praising her local police force for everything it does.

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

I welcome this statement. I have always been opposed to diverting taxpayers’ money to police and crime commissioners and their offices, and away from officers who can fight rural crime in our area. I have a couple of concerns. First, what will happen if a police force area like mine is split between two mayors? Secondly, could the Minister write to me to confirm the number of police officers that Avon and Somerset force might expect to employ, and to say whether this will happen by the end of the decade? Rumour has it that the previous police and crime commissioner had 28 or 29 staff, which is a lot of money.

[Sarah Jones]

Police and crime commissioners make their own decisions about how many staff they have; on average, I would say that they have between 20 and 50. Many of those staff do excellent work, and I pay tribute to them. Many carry out functions that we will need to continue; they are commissioning victim services, for example. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about her area; there are complexities to do with the mayoral model and how it is playing out that I am happy to discuss.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

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

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

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

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

[Jess Phillips]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Topical questions should be short.

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

T4. The Home Office states that it takes fraud in visa applications seriously, but I know of a case involving a man who came here on a spousal visa, was then arrested four times for domestic abuse, and left the family home in October ’23. All this is backed up by police reports and social worker documentation. In his spousal visa application of March last year, he claimed that he was still living with my constituent in the family home. She has reported this twice to the Home Office—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. These are topical questions. I call the Minister.

Crime and Policing Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have had discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, and I am happy for them to continue.

I am very conscious of the time, and I know that many Members wish to speak, so I want to make some progress now. Through the Bill we will protect people better by making stalking protection orders more widely available and introducing a new criminal offence of administering a harmful substance, for instance by spiking. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has long campaigned for our measures to strengthen the management of offenders in the community and introduce enhanced notification requirements for registered sex offenders, as well as a bar on their changing their names when there is a risk of sexual harm.

We are also taking stronger measures to protect our children, which is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of all. The Bill will create a new duty to report child sexual abuse, backed up by criminal sanctions for those who seek to cover up abuse by preventing or deterring someone from carrying out the duty. That was recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Prime Minister and I both called for it more than a decade ago. The Bill will make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offenders, because these are the most vile and damaging of crimes, and will introduce new criminal offences to combat the use of artificial intelligence technology in the making or sharing of child sexual abuse material, and stronger action against those who organise grooming online, where the scale of abuse and crime is increasing steeply.

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

I thank the Secretary of State greatly for giving way. I recognise what clauses 45 to 54 say about the mandatory duty in England to report child sexual abuse, and I wonder if I might draw her attention to the fact that there are exceptions dating back to 1603, under canon law, for confessions relating to treason. There is also precedent in section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, relating to terrorism, which covers faith leaders. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might help the various churches, faith leaders and volunteers in England to make sure that they mandatorily report when they come across this stuff in confession?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Policing Minister is happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the detail. It is imperative that all institutions and organisations across communities take responsibility for tackling these appalling and damaging crimes.

We are also introducing measures around national security, including a new youth diversion order to help manage the increasing number of young people being investigated or arrested for terrorism-related activity. Counter-terror police have said that their case load of young people has trebled in just three years, and more action is needed.

There are further measures, which I am sure we will discuss later in this debate and in Committee, to strengthen standards in policing and ensure that chief officers and local policing boards have the right to appeal the result of misconduct boards to police appeals tribunals, to make sure that those who are not fit to serve can be removed from policing and that the standards of police officers, who do an incredible job across the country, can be maintained.

On accountability, we will bring forward amendments to establish a presumption that firearms officers who are charged with offences relating to, and committed during, their duties will have their anonymity preserved during the court process so that we can maintain their confidence, as well as the confidence of communities, in the work that they do.

Safety from harm is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right that should be afforded to everyone, no matter their circumstances. No one should be left to live in fear because of crime and antisocial behaviour in their community. Under this Government, safer streets is a mission for us all, to draw our communities together. We are putting police back on the beat, introducing respect orders and taking action on off-road bikes, shoplifting, street theft, stalking, spiking, grooming and child abuse, knife sales, terrorism and serious crime. We are taking stronger action against criminals, delivering stronger support for victims, restoring respect for the rule of law and restoring police to our streets. Ultimately, we are building a better, fairer Britain that is founded on safety and security for all. I commend this Bill to the House.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree. These terrible crimes have been ignored for too long. There are currently 127 major police operations under way on child sexual exploitation and gang grooming, across 29 different police forces. The independent inquiry identified that child sexual exploitation happens across all police force areas and all communities. All areas should ensure that they have the proper systems in place to follow up on what is happening to missing children, such as the vulnerable kids who stay out overnight, or those who go missing from residential care homes. Too often, that is still not happening and too often, we still get reports, even though those are basic things that all police forces and local authorities should be doing.

That is why we have strengthened the powers for victims to get a review, and that is why we are requiring police forces to look back at historical cases, because we know that cases are not being reported and not being investigated. That is where the fastest action needs to be, to go after the perpetrators who are still on our streets and still getting away with it. They will continue to do so unless police forces and local councils work together to put perpetrators behind bars.

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

I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and particularly to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am the last remaining MP of the seven Members of the House of Commons who originally called on Theresa May to hold an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. My experiences are also on the record. I therefore particularly welcome the acceptance of Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations and Baroness Louise Casey’s rapid review into child sexual exploitation.

May I, however, draw the Home Secretary’s attention to my concern about police investigations? She has referred to the matter of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and to reopening cases, but I am concerned about people marking their own homework and we know that there is an institutional resistance to being found lacking and to deep scrutiny.

One of the primary whistleblowers with whom I was involved has waited years for the truth to out, and senior police officers have threatened to sue her. It would appear that complaints can only be made about junior officers who are called and investigated, and that there is no ability to complain about senior officers. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct reports, whether they have been published or not—particularly where they have not been published—and where there have been threats, as I understand it, from the police to sue members of those organisations about their findings. It is incredibly serious that we have organisations such as the IPCC and the IOPC—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Home Secretary.

Police Reform

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is the experience that many Members of Parliament will encounter when they talk to their constituents, who feel that there is no point in reporting things because nothing will happen and no one will come. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee is so important. We will have those police officers, PCSOs and specials back on our streets. That visible presence will be there, so I can absolutely say that that is part of our safer streets mission and that is what we will deliver.

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

May I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), particularly in relation to things like rural crime, car racing, bike racing, threatening behaviour, burglary and shoplifting, and the frustration that people feel with the delays and lack of response and with things such as camera footage, which is taken every day, not being used? That frustration is, none the less, absolutely dwarfed by the frustration of the fact that the previous Avon and Somerset police and crime commissioner had 28.5 full-time equivalent members of staff and a massive budget. My constituents have no idea how that is justified when what they want is police officers. Can the Minister please make sure that her review actually includes getting a grip on what is happening in PCC offices?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady will have an opportunity, when the White Paper is published, to make her and her constituents’ views clear. Clearly, there will be questions around the different roles—the Home Secretary’s role, the PCC role and chief constables’ operationally independent role—and that will be part of the discussion and debate around how we take forward the White Paper and the recommendations that come out of it.