Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

   Opposition amendment 36 introduces a financial penalty for a registered sex offender who fails to notify the police of a name change. The penalty, set at a fine not exceeding £2,500, aims to ensure that offenders remain fully accountable for complying with the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The failure to notify the police of a change in name could undermine the effectiveness of the existing system designed to monitor and track sex offenders, making it crucial to incentivise full adherence to the notification process. Sexual offences are among the most serious and traumatic crimes, leaving deep and lasting harm on victims, emotionally, psychologically and socially. These offences often involve a profound breach of trust and personal safety, with long-term consequences for victims’ wellbeing and mental health. The most severe cases can shatter lives and destroy families. Because of the gravity and impact of these crimes, it is vital that society sets a clear and uncompromising message that such behaviour will not be tolerated, including in the conditions and requirements that follow conviction.

   Hansard source
2. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   The clause introduces a new and significant change to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 through the insertion of proposed new section 87A. This change provides for registered sex offenders to give their notifications virtually, in specific conditions, as opposed to attending the police station in person. The provision is designed to make the notification process more flexible and efficient, while still ensuring public safety and compliance with the law. The core idea behind the clause is to allow individuals to submit their notifications virtually, such as through video calls or similar technologies. However, the virtual submission of notifications will be allowed only when specific conditions are met, as set out in the clause. Will the Minister clarify how senior police officers will determine when it is safe to allow offenders to submit their notifications virtually instead of attending a police station in person? What specific factors will be considered in the risk assessment to ensure that public safety is not compromised? Under what circumstances can a senior police officer revoke the permission for virtual notifications, and how quickly can the decision be made?

   Hansard source
3. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Clause 64 amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to make changes to the review process for offenders in England and Wales who are subject to indefinite notification requirements. These changes specifically apply to offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 30 months or more. Under the current law, offenders subject to indefinite notification must comply with notification requirements for a minimum of 15 years, or eight years for juveniles, before they may apply to the police to review their requirements. The police, working alongside other multi-agency public protection arrangement agencies when appropriate, will review these requirements to determine whether they are still necessary to protect the public from sexual harm. One of the significant changes introduced by clause 64 is the concept of an own motion review. This allows the chief officer of police to initiate a review of an offender’s indefinite notification requirements without the offender needing to apply. The chief officer can assess whether an offender still needs to comply with the notification requirements, based on the risk they pose to the public. While the review process can begin only once the minimum review period has elapsed, the chief officer of police must notify the offender that they are initiating a review and allow the offender to make representations. The police must also inform the responsible bodies, such as the Probation Service, and seek any relevant information they hold. Once the offender has had an opportunity to make their case, the chief officer must make a determination within six weeks. If the decision is to end the notification requirements, they cease immediately. Clause 65 introduces new paragraphs 6A to 6D to schedule 3A to the 2003 Act, establishing provisions for own motion reviews in Northern Ireland that mirror those set out in the new sections for England and Wales. Is the Minister confident that own motion reviews of indefinite notification requirements will not undermine public safety, and how can we ensure that the decision-making process in these reviews is transparent, and that there is adequate oversight to hold the responsible authorities accountable?

   Hansard source
4. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Section 96B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 grants police officers the authority to apply for a warrant to enter and search a relevant offender’s home when necessary for assessing their risk. Currently, that application can be made only by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent. The police typically seek and execute such warrants when an offender refuses to allow the police entry to their home, thus hindering the risk-assessment process. The clause amends section 96B by altering the application process. Instead of requiring a senior officer of at least superintendent rank to apply for the warrant, proposed new subsection (1) would allow an application to be made by a police officer, but it must first be approved by an “appropriate officer”. That term is further clarified in proposed new subsection (10) to mean a constable who is authorised to make the application by a constable of at least the rank of inspector. That change rightly aims to streamline the process while ensuring that officers of appropriate rank and authority can make the necessary applications to protect the public and assess offenders’ risks effectively. How big an impact does the Minister anticipate that allowing officers of lower rank to apply for warrants will have on the efficiency and speed of police operations when carrying out the risk assessments? Will thought be given to the relevant training for the appropriate officers in such circumstances?

   Hansard source
5. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Stalking is a deeply harmful and invasive crime that can have severe, long-lasting effects on victims. The impacts of stalking go far beyond the initial fear that it instils. It can completely disrupt a person’s sense of safety, security and control over their own life. Victims of stalking often experience intense psychological distress, ranging from anxiety and depression to post-traumatic stress disorder. The constant feeling of being watched, harassed or threatened can lead to chronic stress, sleep disturbances and a diminished quality of life. In extreme cases, victims may even alter their daily routine, change their contact information or move to new locations to escape the perpetrator’s unwanted attention. The emotional and psychological toll on victims extends to their families and loved ones. Friends and family members of stalking victims often share in the anxiety and fear, feeling helpless as they watch someone they care about fall victim. Relationships may become strained as the victim withdraws or becomes hypervigilant, and families may find themselves taking additional security measures to protect the victim. The overall sense of instability can erode trust and safety within the victim’s support network, leaving everyone involved emotionally drained. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, a leading charity focused on personal safety and stalking, defines stalking as “a pattern of fixated and obsessive behaviour which is repeated, persistent, intrusive and causes fear of violence or engenders alarm and distress in the victim.” It is right that, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, steps were taken to legislate for the criminalisation of stalking. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust highlighted: “Section 2A labels stalking as a criminal offence for the first time in English and Welsh Law.” I am proud of the steps that the previous Government took to take action against this terrible crime, and I support the current Government in their efforts to reduce its prevalence. Clause 69 amends the Stalking Protection Act 2019 to strengthen the ability of courts to impose stalking protection orders, even when criminal proceedings do not result in a conviction. It will insert proposed new section A1, which defines what a stalking protection order is: an order that can impose prohibitions or requirements on a person to prevent acts associated with stalking. It clarifies that SPOs may now be made on application by the police or following an acquittal, appeal or finding of insanity or disability. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on how the Government will ensure that the power is used proportionately and not seen to be circumventing due process, particularly in cases of acquittal. As the Minister will know, in November 2022, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, acting on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium, submitted a super-complaint highlighting serious and widespread concerns about how the police respond to stalking. The complaint identified systemic issues, including a lack of understanding among officers about what behaviours amount to stalking. It also criticised the quality of investigations, stating that, even when stalking is correctly identified, police often fail to handle these cases appropriately. The head of external affairs at Women’s Aid, Isabelle Younane, emphasised that changes to stalking protection orders will only be effective if the root issues are tackled. She stressed the need for the police and other agencies to have a consistent understanding of the orders and to apply them properly, ensuring that breaches result in meaningful consequences. Is the Minister confident that the police have the capacity, training and resources to effectively address stalking cases in line with the measures in the Bill? Proposed new section 364A of the sentencing code introduces the concept of a stalking protection order designed to prevent individuals from engaging in stalking behaviours. The order can include both prohibitions and requirements. Subsection (2) directs readers to section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for examples of behaviours associated with stalking. Subsection (3) provides that an SPO may be time-limited or indefinite; if time-limited, subsection (4) mandates a minimum duration of two years. Allowing a stalking protection order to be time-limited or indefinite will mean that the courts can tailor orders to individual cases. In some situations, an indefinite order may be necessary to protect victims from ongoing risk, while in others a fixed-term order may be more appropriate. This measure can help to ensure long-term protection. Requiring a minimum duration of two years for a time- limited SPO will ensure that victims receive meaningful protection. Short-term orders may not give victims the reassurance and safety they need, especially in cases where stalking behaviours persist or escalate over time. Has consideration been given to increasing the minimum period to allow for sufficient victim protection? Proposed new section 364B of the sentencing code gives courts the power to impose an SPO following a conviction. The court must be satisfied that the offender has committed acts associated with stalking, that there is a continuing risk of stalking to another person, and that the order is necessary to protect that individual. That can include cases where the stalker targets people close to the main victim—for example, friends or family—to cause distress to the main victim. These provisions are a positive and necessary step in strengthening protections for stalking victims. They recognise that perpetrators often target people close to the victim, such as friends, family members or colleagues, in order to cause distress, and they reflect the reality that stalking is used as a form of psychological manipulation and control. Including those indirect victims within the scope of protection will ensure a more comprehensive and preventive approach. Requiring every restriction or requirement in the order to be necessary for the protection of the individual at risk builds in an important safeguard and ensures that conditions are proportionate and directly linked to the risk presented. It balances the rights of the defendant while prioritising victim safety. Furthermore, allowing courts to consider conduct that took place anywhere, including behaviour predating the new legislation, will ensure that they can take a holistic view of the stalker’s actions. This flexibility will enhance the effectiveness of orders and ensure that victims are not left unprotected simply because of jurisdictional or timing technicalities. Proposed new section 364C of the sentencing code provides more detail on how prohibitions and requirements in a stalking protection order should be framed and applied. It requires that, where practicable, any conditions imposed must not conflict with the offender’s religious beliefs or interfere with their usual work or education commitments. It also confirms that SPOs have a UK-wide effect, unless specifically restricted to a certain area. Additionally, where an individual is already subject to an SPO, the court must ensure that any new conditions do not contradict those already in place. That will help to avoid confusion and ensure consistency in enforcement. How confident is the Minister that the need to protect victims is not undermined by the requirement to avoid interfering with an offender’s work, education, or religious practices? Proposed new section 364G of the sentencing code makes it clear that breaching the terms of a stalking protection order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. It will be for the court to determine what qualifies as a reasonable excuse in an individual case. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both, on summary conviction, and up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both, on conviction on indictment. Subsection (3) states specifically that courts cannot issue a conditional discharge for breaching an SPO. How will the Government ensure that the penalties for breaching an SPO are proportionate? Are courts being encouraged to take breaches seriously, even when no new criminal offence has occurred? Can the Minister clarify what might constitute a reasonable excuse for breaching an SPO and how consistent the courts are likely to be in applying that standard?

   Hansard source
6. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Proposed new section 7A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a positive step, as it allows the Secretary of State to issue formal guidance to public authorities in England and Wales on stalking-related matters. That includes the interpretation and application of relevant provisions in the 1997 Act, the Stalking Protection Act 2019, and the Sentencing Act 2020. This guidance will help to ensure that those working across the criminal justice system and other public services, such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and local authorities, have a consistent and accurate understanding of the law and best practice in responding to stalking. It strengthens victim protection by promoting a co-ordinated and informed response, supports earlier identification of stalking behaviours, and provides a clearer framework for agencies to act before harm escalates. Clause 72 gives significant responsibility to the Secretary of State to issue guidance to chief officers of police on the disclosure of police information for the purpose of protecting individuals from risks related to stalking. This power includes using existing police common-law powers to disclose relevant information, such as the identity of online stalkers, to victims of stalking. The guidance can be revised as needed. Before any issuance or revision, the Secretary of State is required to consult with relevant parties, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and any other stakeholders deemed appropriate. Importantly, the Secretary of State must also ensure that the guidance is published and accessible. This new provision aims to improve the safety of stalking victims by ensuring that the police have clear and consistent guidance on disclosing information that could help to protect those at risk, particularly in cases of online stalking. Making it mandatory for police officers to consider this guidance increases the likelihood that appropriate actions will be taken in situations where the disclosure of information could prevent further harm to victims. How do the Government intend to ensure that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State is effectively implemented across all stakeholders, particularly in areas where stalking cases may not be as prevalent?

   Hansard source
7. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 73, page 88, line 33, after “aggrieve” insert “, take revenge on, prank,”.

   Hansard source
8. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   Clause 73 modernises and strengthens the law on the administration of harmful substances, including offences commonly referred to as spiking. It repeals outdated provisions in the Offences against the Person Act 1861, specifically sections 22 and 23, and replaces section 24 with a more comprehensive and clear offence. Spiking can have a devastating and long-lasting impact on victims, both physically and psychologically. Victims often experience immediate symptoms, such as nausea, disorientation, memory loss and the loss of consciousness, placing them at serious risk of harm, including assault or injury. Beyond the immediate physical danger, the psychological effects can be profound and enduring. Many victims report anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and a persistent sense of vulnerability or fear, particularly in social situations. The trauma is often compounded by the fact that victims may be unable to recall events clearly, leading to feelings of confusion, helplessness and self-doubt. Furthermore, the social stigma and lack of visible support can discourage victims from reporting incidents, deepening the emotional toll. Spiking undermines a person’s basic sense of safety, and its impact can ripple far beyond the initial incident, affecting relationships, social confidence and overall mental health. Between May 2022 and April 2023, the police received 6,732 reports of spiking incidents, including 957 involving needle spiking. On average, around 561 reports were made each month. Despite the volume of reports, gathering reliable national data on spiking remains challenging. There is currently no comprehensive dataset that accurately reflects the prevalence of the crime. Although the Ministry of Justice records data on certain offences, it logs only the principal offence for which a person is convicted and sentenced. Since spiking can fall under a variety of criminal charges, it is difficult to determine how often it leads to prosecution or conviction. The police do collect incident-level data, and some campaign groups conduct surveys, but these sources do not provide a full picture of how widespread, or effectively prosecuted, spiking is. Under proposed new section 24 of the 1861 Act, it is an offence to unlawfully administer or cause another person to be administered a harmful substance, with a “harmful substance” being defined as “any poison or other destructive or noxious thing”, with the intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. This modernised wording explicitly covers a broader range of harmful conduct, including situations in which harmful substances are covertly introduced into a person’s drink or otherwise ingested without their knowledge or consent, which has been an issue of growing public concern in recent years. The offence carries serious penalties. On summary conviction in a magistrates court in England and Wales, an offender may face up to the general maximum term of imprisonment or a fine, or both. In Northern Ireland, the summary conviction maximum is six months’ imprisonment or a fine up to the statutory limit, or both. On indictment, the maximum penalty increases to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. By updating this area of law, the Government will ensure that the criminal justice system has a more robust and relevant tool to tackle spiking and related offences, enhancing victim protection and enabling tougher sentences where appropriate. The charity Stamp Out Spiking, which has long campaigned for a dedicated spiking offence, described the proposed new offence as “a rallying call to empower victims” to report incidents. However, the charity also emphasised that the new law is just one element of a broader solution. It stressed that effective collaboration between police, transport providers, venues and support organisations such as Stamp Out Spiking is essential to creating safer environments and rebuilding public confidence in nightlife and public spaces. Does the Minister accept that legislation alone is not enough and that a co-ordinated strategy involving education, prevention and enforcement is needed to truly tackle spiking? Will she commit to furthering the delivery of a joined-up approach to tackling spiking? Amendment 44 expands the scope of intent behind the offence of administering harmful substances, including by spiking. By inserting the words “take revenge on, prank” after “aggrieve”, the amendment makes it clear that the offence applies not only when a person administers a harmful substance with the intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy, but when the intent is to take revenge or play a prank. That broadens the legal coverage of the offence to reflect real-world cases in which spiking is carried out as an act of retaliation or as a so-called joke. It would ensure that such behaviour is recognised as criminal regardless of whether the perpetrator believed it to be harmless or amusing. Take the example of Gillian Reilly, a nursing student who experienced a harrowing incident when a friend spiked her drink as a laugh during a celebration at her university’s students’ union bar. Initially attributing her symptoms—dizziness, sharp stomach pains and violent nausea—to overconsumption of alcohol, she soon realised that something was amiss. Her condition deteriorated to the point where she feared for her life. She said: “I felt so unwell I honestly thought I was going to die.” The revelation that a friend was responsible for the spiking was particularly shocking, highlighting that threats can come from familiar individuals, not just strangers. The incident underscores the severe physical and psychological impacts of spiking, and emphasises the need for increased awareness and preventive measures, particularly in university settings. The Alcohol Education Trust said that spiking cases always surge during the first term of the new academic year, but that suspected incidents had reached frightening new levels, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council revealing that there were 198 spiking incidents, including 24 via injection, across the UK in just two months. The Drinkaware monitor survey from 2022 showed that, in most cases, no additional crime had occurred after an individual was drugged. However, where an additional crime did take place, 8.4% involved so-called pranks. That suggests that such a mentality is relevant to the intentions behind the offence. If we are to legislate on this matter, we must ensure that robust laws are in place to support effective prosecution.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

   I will press the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Clause 74 creates a new criminal offence targeting individuals who intentionally carry out acts capable of encouraging or assisting another person to seriously self-harm. Crucially, the offence goes beyond previous legislation, such as section 184 of the Online Safety Act 2023, by covering not just verbal or digital communications, but any form of direct or indirect action. That includes, for example, physically providing someone with an object like a blade to use for self-harm. The new offence is based on a recommendation from the Law Commission, which proposed criminalising the intentional encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm. The proposal was modelled on the existing offence of encouraging or assisting suicide, as set out in the Suicide Act 1961. The Law Commission highlighted the need for any such offence to be carefully and narrowly defined to ensure that vulnerable individuals, particularly those who share self-harm content online, are not unintentionally criminalised. Subsection (1) sets out the core of the offence. A person commits it if they carry out “an act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person” and they did so with the intent that such harm would be caused. Subsection (2) clarifies that the offender does not need to know who the victim is. The offence still applies if the act is aimed at an unknown or unidentified individual, such as in the case of anonymous online posts targeting vulnerable people. Subsection (3) states that an offence is committed whether or not serious self-harm actually takes place. The focus is on the intent and the potential for harm, not the outcome. Self-harm is a deeply concerning issue that affects people of all ages, but especially young people and those struggling with mental health challenges. It involves deliberately causing pain or injury to oneself as a way of coping with overwhelming emotional distress, anxiety, trauma or feelings of numbness and hopelessness. The physical risks of self-harm can be severe, ranging from permanent scarring and infections to life-threatening injuries and even accidental death. The psychological toll is often even more damaging. Those who self-harm frequently experience shame, isolation and a deepening of the very mental health struggles that led them to harm themselves in the first place. It is not just the individuals who suffer. Families, friends, schools and communities are all affected. Loved ones often feel helpless or guilty, and support systems can become strained. In many cases, self-harm can escalate to suicidal ideation or attempts, making early intervention critical. The rise of online content that normalises or encourages self-harm has made the issue even more urgent. Vulnerable individuals can be influenced or manipulated into dangerous behaviours by others, sometimes even strangers, through social media or online forums. The law must recognise and respond to this modern reality to better protect those at risk. Tackling self-harm requires not just healthcare support and early intervention, but strong legal tools to prevent others from encouraging or facilitating this deeply harmful behaviour. Clause 74 takes an important step in that direction. Clause 75 strengthens the framework around the offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm by closing potential loopholes in enforcement. It ensures that individuals who arrange for others to carry out a harmful act are equally accountable if those acts are carried out, even if indirectly. The provision also captures cases where the intended harm could not physically occur, such as when a person mistakenly believes a harmless item will cause harm, or when the planned outcome does not materialise as expected. That underlines that liability can arise from intention and belief, not just outcome. Furthermore, the clause draws a clear boundary for internet service providers, confirming that they will not be held criminally responsible solely for providing the platform through which harmful content is transmitted. The provision aligns with broader legislative changes by removing overlapping measures in existing law, ensuring clarity and consistency in how such offences are addressed. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline what further steps might be under consideration to ensure that platforms and tech companies have a legal duty to report and remove harmful content, and that this provision is implemented alongside adequate mental health support.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Proposed new section 1(1A) of the 1984 Act addresses a deeply concerning and potentially damaging loophole by making it an offence for a person connected to a child to detain that child abroad after initially taking or sending them out of the UK with proper consent, unless they continue to have that consent. That ensures that consent must be maintained throughout and not just at the point of departure. The 2012 judicial review highlighted a potential gap in the legal framework under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984. The issue arose in situations where a parent lawfully took or sent a child out of the UK with the required consent, but then failed to return the child once the agreed period ended. The case involved Nicholas Nicolaou, who in 2007 arranged for his son to visit him in Cyprus for a limited time, in accordance with a court order. However, he did not return his son to the UK when the permitted visit expired. Following unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter through the family courts, a warrant was issued for Nicolaou’s arrest. Nicolaou challenged the warrant through judicial review, arguing that he had not committed an offence under section 1 of the 1984 Act. His reasoning was that his son had been taken out of the UK with the appropriate consent, and that section 1 covers only the act of removal, not the failure to return a child thereafter. The High Court upheld Nicolaou’s claim, agreeing that section 1 applies only to the removal of a child from the UK, and that what matters legally is whether consent was in place at the moment the child left the country. As a result, the High Court granted Nicolaou’s application for judicial review, exposing this serious loophole in the existing legislation.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Business of the House

    Yesterday, like many Members across the House, I attended the event staged by the MS Society in Portcullis House. I was given a handout that said that an estimated 3,770 people in my constituency suffer from multiple sclerosis. I have met a number of them and their support groups over the years, but that number is surprising. It is estimated that each year, another 179 will be added to that number. Next week is MS Awareness Week, so it would be an appropriate time for a ministerial statement on that subject, and I hope that the Leader of the House will oblige me with that.

    Hansard source
13. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

    Before speaking to new clause 3 specifically, let me reiterate that the Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to carry over the legislation from the previous Parliament, and that the principles underpinning the Bill continue to enjoy strong cross-party support. We all want and need confidence in our banking sector, yet the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK exposed a gap in our resolution framework for smaller banks. Unlike larger institutions, they do not hold the bail and bond mechanism known as MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—reserves to facilitate recapitalisation in the event of a crisis. By providing the Bank of England with new tools to manage small bank failures, the Bill remains both prudent and necessary to protect financial stability and public funds. Moving on to the amendments we have tabled on Report, I want to make it clear that our approach is constructive and focused on strengthening the Bill, not obstructing its progress. As the Bill has made progress through both Houses, our intention has been to address a series of smaller but none the less significant issues that we believe require further attention. I appreciate that this might be a conversation we can continue in today’s debate, or beyond it, and I would certainly welcome conversations with the Minister, who has been incredibly open to direct conversations in her usual pragmatic style, to further discuss these matters. We have three measures selected for discussion today. I will speak first to new clause 3, which addresses a critical gap in the Bill’s scope: the protection of credit unions. These community-focused institutions have seen significant growth in recent years, driven in part by the eradication of predatory payday lenders, and they continue to provide a vital role in delivering affordable finance to those underserved by traditional banks. Membership of credit unions rose from 1.89 million in 2019 to 2.14 million in 2024—an increase of more than 260,000. However, while their importance has grown, their inclusion in our resolution framework has not kept pace. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid £10.1 million in compensation to credit union depositors over the past three financial years, primarily due to small-scale failures, underscoring their potential vulnerability and the need for a tailored approach as the sector expands. The growth of credit unions is a success story, but it demands proportional safeguards. The Bill, however, excludes credit unions from its recapitalisation mechanism. While their smaller size and unique nature may differentiate them from banks, questions remain. How does the current resolution regime account for credit union failures as the sector scales up? Is there scope to develop a mechanism that protects members without imposing undue burdens on these community institutions? New clause 3 seeks clarity on this matter, requiring the Minister to produce a report outlining how the resolution framework can be adapted to protect credit unions, ensuring that their growth does not outstrip their regulatory safeguards. The vast amount of legislation for credit unions was written back in the 1970s. The previous Government made significant reforms for credit unions through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act, and I welcome the common bond reform consultation, which closed last month. I know that the Government are giving the sector serious consideration, and I am sure the Minister will agree that this is not about applying bank-style rules to mutuals, but about recognising their unique role and risks. Credit unions are more than financial institutions; they are engines of financial inclusion. They often serve small, working-class communities, whom I know the Government want to support specifically. As the sector evolves, so too must our approach. We must ensure that our regulatory framework grows. I hope the Government will support this amendment, which simply seeks to look more clearly at the options available when a crisis happens. Amendment 2 seeks to address a concern that has been raised with me by the mutual and building society sector. These institutions are not relics of the past, but vital components of our financial ecosystem. Although the first known building society was set up in 1775 by ordinary working people helping themselves to build their financial resilience and get a home of their own, they remain current today. Building societies today hold more than £360 billion in assets and provide mortgages for more than 3 million people in the UK. They represent a significant proportion of the housing market and are a trusted source of savings for millions more. They provide a clear and important diversification in our financial markets, offering a clear alternative to shareholder banks. The Labour party stood on a clear manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, which the Opposition agree is a very good policy. Today presents a good opportunity for Labour Members to demonstrate that commitment to the sector by enshrining in the Bill a requirement that the Bank of England consider the risk of demutualisation when using the mechanisms enshrined therein. There is a genuine fear in the building society sector that, without proper safeguards, the recapitalisation mechanism offered by the Bill could inadvertently become a back door for demutualisation. When a mutual institution faces resolution, the selection of a purchaser from the plc sector risks permanently dismantling its mutual status, undermining the very ethos that makes these institutions unique. Our amendment would provide a proportionate solution, requiring the Bank of England to consider the impact of demutualisation on members and the sector as a whole, while also exploring the feasibility of selecting a mutual sector purchaser, if one exists and meets the resolution objectives. This is not about privileging mutuals at the expense of financial stability; it is about ensuring that the Bank’s resolution tools do not inadvertently homogenise our financial landscape. Silicon Valley Bank demonstrated the need for agile resolution frameworks, but it also highlighted the importance of preserving institutional diversity. Mutuals and building societies often serve communities and demographics that larger banks frequently overlook. Their potential loss would leave gaps in financial inclusion and weaken the resilience of the sector. Importantly, without the millions of mortgages provided by the building society sector, particularly for first-time homeowners, Labour’s house building plans would be simply impossible. I hope the Minister appreciates that our amendment strikes a careful balance between safeguarding financial stability and honouring our commitment to a pluralistic banking system—one where mutuals continue to thrive as a cornerstone of community-focused finance. I remind Labour Members that it will be much harder to double the size of the mutual sector if, in the event of a failure, recapitalisation defaults towards the banking sector. I hope the Government will therefore demonstrate their manifesto commitment to the mutual and co-operative sector by voting today for new clause 3 and amendment 2. There remains genuine concern—shared across this House and reflected in the debates in the other place—over the risk of the recapitalisation mechanism being applied too broadly and potentially capturing larger banks that already hold substantial loss-absorbing resources, such as MREL. We continue to believe that the mechanism should be limited in scope and targeted at smaller banks that do not have the same capacity to manage their own failure. Amendment 1 would limit the use of the mechanism to what it was always intended to be: a mechanism for smaller banks outside the MREL regime. I appreciate that new clauses 1 and 2 have already been ruled out of scope, but it may be worth noting a couple of points on these measures. I wish to place on the record today that the Opposition believe the time has come for a review of how we set the threshold for MREL, as well as the protection ceilings for depositors under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The current static nature of MREL thresholds disproportionately affects smaller and mid-sized banks, particularly challenger banks. By indexing MREL thresholds to inflation, we can ensure that the regulatory framework remains robust over time without stifling competition. These institutions often operate on tighter margins and face significant barriers in meeting rigid capital requirements, hindering their ability to scale and compete effectively with larger incumbents. While we appreciate that the Bank of England’s consultation on MREL closed earlier this year, we hope that the Government will consider these points. Threshold limits should not stay static with time. Likewise, we welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to review the Financial Services Compensation Scheme deposit limit. The recent announcement of the increase of the deposit protection scheme from £85,000 to £110,000, although very welcome, is certainly overdue. It is worth noting that if the limit had kept pace with inflation, it would be nearly two thirds higher, at around £140,000, according to the Federation of Small Businesses. It is worth noting that only 4.6% of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK deposits were insured by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—

    Hansard source
15. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

    My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are points that we feel are worth noting, but I take your comments. I will turn to amendment 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Although we share the intent behind the amendment, which mirrors the Conservatives’ amendment on MREL limits for banks, there is a critical difference in its approach that gives us pause. Like us, the Liberal Democrats recognise that end-state MREL banks should not be the primary target of this legislation. However, their amendment introduces a requirement for a statutory instrument under the negative procedure that we believe would create more problems than it solves. Our concern lies in the potential impracticality of this approach. Banking crises can unfold rapidly, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank UK, where decisions were made in a matter of hours, not days. A statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure becomes law the moment the Minister signs it, which is a good thing, and it remains in law unless either House rejects it within 40 sitting days. That creates a window of uncertainty. If Members were to pray against the statutory instrument, particularly in a hung Parliament, it could trigger market instability, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to avoid, so although we agree with the principle of limiting the Bill’s scope, we worry that the mechanism could tie the hands of a future Chancellor, hindering their ability to respond swiftly and decisively in a crisis. For those reasons, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

    With the leave of the House, I wish to address one or two of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) is an incredibly valuable contributor to the debate because of his experience back in the days of the 2008 financial crisis. If I remember correctly, that was largely a result of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which almost compounded the problem by having a tripartite regime that looked after the banking sector at the time. If I remember rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time found it so scary that his eyebrows nearly turned white. One of the surprising things about that crisis was that just 10 years earlier we had seen the Asian banking crisis, which basically laid the groundwork for what subsequently happened in the west. Perhaps we in the west were too arrogant to believe that it could happen to us, yet it sure did. In my role as a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016, and on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I looked at all these issues very extensively. It is incredibly important that we resolve the issue. As it has turned out, the Financial Services Act 2012 and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 have worked well in respect of some of this resolution. On the point about LDIs and the financial crisis as a result of the Budget, we dealt with the problem pretty swiftly and pretty brutally. When one of our leaders gets it wrong, we get rid of them fairly quickly. I suggest to the Labour party that if Government Front Benchers get things wrong, it is worth cauterising the problem and moving on. On credit unions and mutuals, we absolutely recognise the point about the mutual sector. We are not asking for demutualisation to be ruled out; we are asking for the prospect of avoiding demutualisation to be part of that very swift process. That is why we will press amendment 2 to a Division. I met the credit unions yesterday, and they are keen that the principle of new clause 3 is voted on, so we will press that as well. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

    May I first say a hearty congratulations to the Minister on bringing through her first Bill in the new Government? She was parachuted into the job rather recently, but she has done a magnificent job, and it has been a pleasure to engage with her. We share the aim of working in the interests of the wider economy, and we have worked together on the Bill. We may differ on a few tiny details, but we agree on its overall objective. As I mentioned on Report, I spent some time on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards looking at how we can stop another banking crisis, and on the Treasury Committee doing pre-legislative work on the Financial Services Act 2012. This is an iterative and organic process. We will never be able to stop financial crises happening, but working together, we can ensure that there are no more instances of contagion flooding through the system. This Bill is extraordinarily good in following that iterative process, in order to make the banking system unsinkable, I hope—and I do not use that term lightly, as someone might have done in the film “Titanic”; this is genuinely very important. I pay credit to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and their officials, who worked tirelessly to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank UK was transferred to HSBC over that weekend, which undoubtedly avoided wider disruption to the financial system. We are delighted that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and we welcome the Government’s decision to carry it over into this Parliament. I was about to say that our swords will cross in the coming months and years, but I do not think they will; I think we will almost certainly agree on things. We will engage with the Minister and her officials to ensure that we have a world-class financial system that is the envy of the world. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Ukraine War: London Talks

    At the London talks, did the Government have the opportunity to discuss with allies the deployment of 155 members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in support of Russia against Ukraine?

    Hansard source
19. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Business of the House

    Good luck!

    Hansard source
20. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Business of the House

    I know that like me, the Leader of the House will be a massive fan of acrobatic gymnastics, so she will be aware that over the Easter break, Team GB went over to Luxembourg to compete with 22 other nations. What she might not be aware of is the outstanding contribution made by Spelthorne Gymnastics in bringing home five gold medals and three silver medals from the European championships. Will she join me and Members from across the House in congratulating Team GB and Spelthorne Gymnastics on this outstanding effort?

    Hansard source
21. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    I am a Hertfordshire county councillor until 1 May.

    Hansard source
22. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q I will follow up with some questions to Ofgem. You said earlier that we are moving from a first come, first served system to one where somebody is going to determine what should take priority and what should come before something else. Who is going to make that determination? Beatrice Filkin: What has happened to date is that NESO has done some preparatory work assessing options. We have made a decision about how they should go about reordering the queue based on need and readiness —that is the decision we made last week. NESO now needs to implement that decision, which is what they will be doing rapidly over this year to make those choices. For the reordering of the queue, it will prioritise the projects that were due to connect in the next year or two, first of all, and then the completion of all the projects that are needed for clean power by the beginning of 2026. That is the process. We are not walking away from that. We are regulating NESO, but also working with them on this process. We see this as a very critical enabler of clean power. Working through this year of that process, we will be a partner alongside them. That is also why we very much welcome the provisions in the Bill to provide the legislative security of what they are looking to do.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q It will not be Ministers deciding what projects get priority and come forward; it will be Ofgem. Beatrice Filkin: We have made a decision about the way in which NESO now prioritises the queue. They are doing that going forward. Our decision-making process was finished last week. That is the process by which they make those decisions. They are now going to implement that decision and do that re-ordering decision—individual decisions—over the year.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q How do you determine what should get priority and what should not? Beatrice Filkin: We have set out in our decision the way in which NESO should assess the queue. They will use the information that we set out last week—that guidance—to implement and take each individual project, weigh it up against the criteria, decide whether they meet the need and the readiness requirements and use that to sort through the queue. That is a process. They will operationalise our decision of last week. Christianna Logan: On the practicalities of how that will be approached, NESO’s proposal is that the customers with connections contracts will provide evidence of their readiness to meet the criteria, in terms of things like submission of planning consents and land rights—ways that they can evidence they are progressing their projects at the pace necessary to achieve the 2030 goals and, as Beatrice said, against the strategic alignment of different technology types with the needs of the clean power plan. Customers will put forward their evidence that their projects are best placed. NESO will use that to assess which ones should go forward. Within that, there is some protection for projects that are already well progressed, so that we do not impact investments that are ready to be deployed to hit those targets.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q How will that affect the timeframe? I suppose the Government want projects to happen quickly, but you are now saying that there is another process to go through, so can you explain how that will affect the timeframe of projects? Beatrice Filkin: What we set out in the decision last week sets off the piece of work that NESO are doing over this year. That helps projects, because as we have talked about, there are a number of projects in the queue that are either nowhere near ready or are not deemed needed for the overall strategic plan. So the process of sorting through the queue will speed up that very constrained access to the network to enable those projects that are needed and ready to join and connect to the network earlier.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    I would like to ask a few questions—

    Hansard source
27. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Sorry; yes. We have spoken about local plans and outline planning permission, and I will link those two together. There is a lot of consultation around development that comes forward, and the public in the area buy into it, because it is almost like it is painted in gold. The developers say that they can deliver all the amenities and everything the residents want, and then when they come forward for full planning permission, the proposal is completely changed. The residents have bought into something that they want, in the form of the fantastic development that the developers proposed. But when the developers come for full planning, it is completely different, so the residents are up in arms because they have not really bought into that. Would you make some comments on the differentials there? Faraz Baber: The outline, as you say, is an outline, but the reality is that any full application that comes forward should be aligned with the agreement on social infrastructure and all the other elements that are required, whether that is the affordable housing, social infrastructure, civil payments or whatever. There was an earlier question: what is planning for? Well, planning is for that—to ensure that those community benefits are derived from development and to ensure that it is inclusive, not just for new residents but for existing residents as well. I think that is a guardianship point, where the planning team or the local authority have to ensure that what they said they wanted to see from the plan is ultimately delivered. People will go into viability discussions and say, “I can’t afford that and I can’t afford this.” That is a judgment that has to be made about what can be delivered in the public interest. In answer to your question, that is very much where planning sits at the fore, to ensure that the right development with the right social infrastructure comes forward, and that it is fitting for the place it is sitting in.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I want to come back to something you said at the beginning, Jack—I probably should say that I am still a local councillor until 1 May. You basically said that no one engages with the planning system, or that the public—constituents—do not engage with it. What evidence do you have to suggest that? I would slightly push back on such a sweeping statement, so I just want to understand what evidence you have to back that up. Jack Airey: At Public First we do lots of opinion research. We do public polling, focus groups and something we call immersives. We go and speak to people and ask what they think about things. In some polling we have asked, “Have you engaged in planning applications? Do you get involved in the local plan?” and it is minuscule proportions of people. We go and speak to people about developments that are happening. There is definitely opposition to development and it is often very intense. Often, if you listen to debates in the building across the road or you look online, it looks like it is totally representative of a local community, but often, if you speak to people on the ground, most do not care about it. They might even support it. While there is some opposition—I am sure you hear it a lot in your constituencies when you go doorstep to doorstep —it is much smaller than it seems. That is the message I was trying to give. It is about engaging those people who need to be housed, if we are talking about housing, just as much as the people who oppose development. We should talk to them a bit more.

    Hansard source
29. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    I do not agree.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    What direct discussions has the Minister had with people in Scotland who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal about the slow pace of compensation payments?

    Hansard source
31. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Business of the House

    There are proposals by Scottish Borders council to close a number of local nurseries, including those at Channelkirk, Yetholm, Glendinning, Westruther, Ednam, Cockburnspath and Fountainhall. There is strong local opposition to those plans. Local nurseries are vital to rural communities such as mine, and keeping them open ensures that we can attract and retain young families in the Scottish Borders. Does the Leader of the House agree that nurseries throughout the United Kingdom should be protected, and will she allow time for a debate to discuss the importance of nursery provision in rural communities?

    Hansard source
32. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to Opposition amendments 44 and 45 and to address directly what I consider to be a major loophole in this proposed law, which has really good intent behind it. There are two elements to the spiking loophole. I can envisage a defendant getting away with administering a harmful substance by saying that he or she did not intend to injure, aggrieve or annoy. Furthermore, they may claim that it was intended merely as a prank, but the act was so obviously reckless and stupid that they should nevertheless be captured by the provision. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam just mentioned, we heard really good evidence on this issue. I pose the rhetorical question: what is the point of evidence sessions if we do not take on powerful and direct testimony from somebody whose family were affected in the most tragic way? “Pranking” was the word used in that session, and we heard that it is on the rise. Spiking can be done with the worst intent—to cause serious harm—but clearly any law should cover someone who intends a prank with a harmful substance. The idea behind broadening the offence beyond merely intent—we are no longer necessarily talking about pranking, but about the intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy—to recklessness has plenty of foundation and precedent in law. In fact, we have just debated that point with clause 57, relating to exposure. Under the new law relating to exposure, someone commits an offence if they expose their genitals for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. There are two reasons why clause 57 will capture someone under criminal law: if the person intends to be seen, or if they are reckless as to whether anyone sees them. When it comes to spiking, the idea should be the same: that a person who administers a harmful substance does so either with intent to injure, aggrieve, annoy or prank, or is reckless as to that being the effect of administering the substance. Let us be clear: under clause 73, administering a harmful substance on its own is not a criminal offence. It requires something in the mind of a person—currently, only intent. I urge the Government to include reckless behaviour in respect of which, to a reasonable person, it should be obvious that injury, grievance or annoyance would result, even if that was not the intention.

    Hansard source
33. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I have a modicum of sympathy for how the Minister is addressing the words “prank” and “revenge”, although I do not necessarily agree with her. Will she address the issue of intent and recklessness, because that has a clear precedent in law, and indeed in the Bill itself?

    Hansard source
34. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
35. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Could there be a local election coming up? I very much hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone here had a perfectly spectacular Easter. I am sure I speak for the whole House in recording my sadness at the death of His Holiness the Pope, who was, in his work and in his life, the embodiment of faith, hope and charity. If I may, I would like to start with something small but important. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) recently asked the Secretary of State for Education, in a written parliamentary question, whether she had visited any private schools since July last year. The junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), replied that “the Secretary of State for Education and the wider ministerial team visit a wide variety of education settings, including private schools. The Secretary of State for Education prioritises visits to our state schools, which serve 93% of pupils in England.” All that is no doubt true but it is not an answer to the question that was put. All ministerial visits are logged by the Department, so it would have been and remains easy to compile the numbers. The Leader of the House has made clear on many occasions her commitment and belief that Members of this House should receive proper answers to their questions. Will she take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Education and see that a proper answer is given? A few weeks ago I talked about how the Prime Minister was steadily being mugged by reality, and we have seen this again in the last few days with the Government’s U-turn on the ban on sourcing photovoltaic cells built with slave labour in China. The same can be said for the Government’s energy policy as a whole. It is important to put before the House the fact that Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to cut bills, boost energy security and create cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero by 2050. It tried to allay public concerns by promising “a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises…the ongoing role of oil and gas in our energy mix.” Nine months on, we can see how that is going. The Government have already had to U-turn on their infeasible commitment to zero carbon electricity by 2030. Most recently, the situation with British Steel in Scunthorpe has underlined the deeper incoherence of their overall approach. By banning new oil and gas licences and preventing new exploration, the Government are committing the UK to greater dependency on imported oil and gas at higher cost, with higher emissions and under less democratic control. In so doing, they are not advancing environmental justice or economic resilience; they are accelerating a decline in energy sovereignty that will leave this country more polluting, less secure and, ultimately, poorer. If we do not produce our own oil and gas, we will have to buy it. The difference is that it will come from overseas, and imported energy is not only more expensive but has a far higher carbon footprint. I remind the House that, for example, importing liquefied natural gas involves cooling gas to 160° below zero, shipping it thousands of miles from Qatar and regasifying it at a port in this country. The net emissions are up to four times higher than those from North sea gas. Crucially, UK territorial emissions go down, but overall emissions, including imports, are higher than they would be. This is not an honest policy. Labour’s manifesto talked about the importance of energy security, but refusing to allow new exploration does not reduce our vulnerability; it increases it. Energy, after all, is national security. It is industrial strategy. It is heating our houses and fuelling our cars. The idea that a major economy should voluntarily give up control of its energy supply before alternatives are well advanced is not progressive—it is reckless. The problem goes somewhat wider. The Government talk about a green industrial revolution, but the more expensive imported energy we have, the harder that will be to achieve. Not just steel but chemicals, ceramics and fertilisers all require large amounts of gas and will do for years to come. If energy is unreliable or unaffordable, those industries will continue to struggle whatever the fond imaginings of the Secretary of State. Worse still, the Government’s policy will squander capital and skills that might have gone into safely managing the UK’s remaining hydrocarbon assets. The extra revenues that would have helped fund the transition will now be lost to the many other countries that welcome such investment, while the Government turn their back on a sector that still employs 200,000 people and contributes billions in tax revenue. I ask the Leader of the House whether she shares my view that we badly need some common sense here. We all want an effective and just energy transition, but that starts with one principle: control what we can and use our own resources responsibly and transparently while building the clean energy system of the future. Instead, the Government have chosen a path that will increase emissions, raise costs, weaken the economy and tie Britain’s future to foreign powers and volatile markets. That is not leadership; that is an abdication.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Civil Service Reform

    The right hon. Gentleman talks a good game about scrapping quangos and I support the review he announced to reduce the size of the bureaucratic state. Why then, despite the rhetoric, are the Government at the same time creating dozens of new quangos?

    Hansard source
37. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to follow the powerful and well-researched contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh. In the digital age, the non-consensual capture and distribution of intimate images and the act of voyeurism have become all too common. Clause 56, which seeks to confront these violations and better protect individuals’ privacy and dignity, is one that I am happy to support, and I thank the Minister for so clearly setting out the case. The clause expands existing laws to criminalise the non-consensual taking of intimate images, including instances such as downblousing, the creation and distribution of digitally altered images such as deepfakes without consent, and the installation of equipment intended to capture intimate images without consent. All are in response to the recommendation from the Law Commission’s 2022 report on intimate image abuse. The digital landscape has facilitated new forms of abuse, often with devastating consequences. Refuge has reported that one in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images—that is 4.4 million people. The Revenge Porn Helpline has detailed the rise in those figures—it received nearly 19,000 reports in 2023, marking a 106% increase from 2022, and a tenfold rise over five years. I also welcome the Minister framing this crime in the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. There is a clear gender disparity when it comes to this crime. In 71% of cases, the victim is female and in over 81% of cases, the perpetrator is male. Those statistics underscore the urgent need for legal reforms to address and deter such abuses effectively, and to protect women and girls overwhelmingly. However, as we have heard frequently in Committee, it will also be critical that the measures are matched with improved enforcement. The sharing of intimate images has been illegal since 2015, and threatening to share intimate images has been a crime since 2021 but, shamefully, perpetrators are rarely held to account. Data published by Refuge in 2023 showed that conviction rates for intimate abuse remain woefully low, with only 4% of cases that are reported to the police resulting in perpetrators being charged. I share Refuge’s view that that must improve. I was also shocked to learn that there remains a gap in the law where non-consensual images remain on perpetrators’ devices even after a conviction. That must be incredibly distressing for those affected by this crime. I ask the Minister to outline what provisions are in place to protect the dignity of victims, so that perpetrators are compelled to delete any non-consensual images.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

    The clause aims to strengthen the protections for individuals from indecent exposure, and to ensure that our communities remain safe and respectful spaces for all. It seeks to provide clearer definitions and stricter penalties for offences involving indecent exposure so that perpetrators of such offences are held accountable and victims receive the justice that they deserve for this sexual crime. While sometimes dismissed as minor, exposure of this kind can have a significant psychological and emotional impact on victims. It is not a trivial matter and can often be a precursor to more severe offences, as we saw with the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, and it contributes to a climate of fear and discomfort in public spaces. Multiple incidents of indecent exposure were linked to the convicted murderer of Sarah Everard before the tragic events of her death in March 2021. In 2015 and 2020, allegations of indecent exposure were made against him in Kent, where he was said to have exposed himself in public. Those reports were not fully investigated at the time. In February 2021, just days before he abducted and murdered Sarah Everard, he was reported to police for exposing himself to staff at a McDonald’s drive-through in Kent. Despite that report being made on 28 February, no meaningful action was taken prior to the murder, which occurred on 3 March. Those incidents have since been heavily scrutinised during inquests and reviews, revealing systematic failures in policing responses to sexual offences, especially so-called lower-level offences such as exposure. While I welcome the expansion of the scope of this offence through clause 57, I urge police to use the new powers and treat these crimes as the serious crimes that they are. They can be a warning of even worse crimes to come. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the College of Policing guidance is being changed appropriately. Being subjected to indecent exposure by a stranger while walking home can leave a woman with lasting trauma. Such behaviour is unacceptable and should be met with appropriate consequences.

    Hansard source
39. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

    There have been some truly harrowing cases that have exposed the inadequacies of our current legal framework in this regard. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister highlighted, the case of David Fuller is the obvious and most extreme example—a hospital electrician who, over 12 years, sexually abused the bodies of more than 100 women and girls in women and mortuaries. His crimes went undetected for decades, revealing significant systematic failure. I fully support the clause that the Minister has outlined, particularly because, as Baroness Noakes has highlighted during parliamentary debates, had Fuller not been convicted of murder, he might have faced only a minimal sentence for his other offences. I have several critical questions on clause 58. I appreciate that the clause would significantly increase the penalty, but are those proposed penalties sufficient? Given the gravity of these offences, should the maximum sentence not be even higher, so that it serves as a stronger deterrent? Take the example of David Fuller. If we had caught him before the murder, under the provisions of the Bill, would he have been given seven years, and is that enough? What safeguards are in place? How can institutions, especially hospitals and funeral homes, implement stricter protocols to prevent such abuses? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. How do we support the victims’ families? Beyond legal measures, what support systems are available to help families to cope with the trauma inflicted by disgusting crimes such as this? Clause 58 is clearly a necessary and long overdue reform that acknowledges the sanctity of the deceased and the rights of the families, and provides greater justice for those who can no longer speak for themselves. I welcome it.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 59 seeks to curb the ability of registered sex offenders to change their names and thereby evade detection and pose a renewed threat to public safety. It does so by introducing a mechanism whereby police can issue a notice to a registered sex offender that prohibits them from changing their name on official documents, such as passports or driving licences, without prior authorisation. It is contingent on the police’s assessment that such a change would pose a risk to the public or specific individuals. Exceptions are considered for legitimate reasons, including marriage, religious conversion or protection from harm, and offenders retain the right to appeal the decisions in a magistrates court. The current legal provisions clearly allow some of the most dangerous in society to evade detection and sometimes even to secure positions of trust, often leading to further offences. Take the case of convicted paedophile Terry Price, who sexually abused Della Wright when she was between the ages of six and 11. Terry Price changed his name five times and offended over three decades. Monsters like that simply must be stopped, and the current provisions are clearly not enough to prevent such criminals from using multiple identities to evade detection and commit the very worst kinds of crime. Thankfully, he is now serving a 22-year sentence. Della Wright bravely waived her right to anonymity and has campaigned tirelessly for measures to close the legal loopholes that allow sex offenders to change their names. Her campaigning has given this issue the attention it deserves. The measures introduced in the clause are proportionate in that they are contingent on the police’s assessment that such a change would pose a risk to the public or specific individuals. I welcome clause 59, but wish to speak to the Opposition amendments that have been tabled to strengthen it. I welcome the constructive way in which the Minister dealt with them. Amendment 36 seeks to impose a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name. Fining registered sex offenders who do not notify the police when they change their name would be a meaningful extra deterrent. We spoke earlier in Committee about fines for littering; if we impose fines of up to £2,500 for persistent or serious cases of littering, why should we not impose a similar financial penalty for registered sex offenders who clearly try to evade the law? Amendment 50 would place a duty on police forces to notify victims if their abuser legally changes their name. It is beyond comprehension that there is no provision in place to give victims the dignity and transparency of being updated if their convicted abuser legally changes their name. I take the Minister’s point that some victims do not want to know—that was a good retort to the amendment—but the suggestion of an opt-in or opt-out system was constructive. Clause 60 will introduce a requirement for registered sex offenders to inform the police if they plan to be away from their sole or main residence for more than five days. Specifically, offenders must notify the police at least 12 hours before leaving, providing details about the date of departure, travel arrangements, accommodation plans during their absence and their expected date of return. If any of this information changes before departure, offenders will be obligated to update the police accordingly. Additionally, if the actual return date differs from the one notified to police, they must inform the police within three days of returning. Under the current legal framework, offenders are required to notify authorities only if they stay at a new address for seven consecutive days or more, which has allowed some to exploit the system by moving between different locations for shorter periods without notification, thereby evading effective monitoring. By reducing the notification threshold to five days, clause 60 seeks to prevent such circumvention and ensure continuous oversight. I wholly support Opposition amendment 37, which seeks to add more teeth to the clause by imposing a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence. Earlier, I used the example of litter fines; if we can fine parents up to £2,500 for persistent absences from school, as is currently the case, we could and should fine registered sex offenders who go absent from their sole or main residence. It is something that the average, sensible, small c conservative citizen of this country would see as an entirely appropriate additional deterrent. Clause 61 introduces a new provision into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to mandate that certain registered sex offenders notify the police before entering premises where children are present. While registered sex offenders are currently already subject to various notification requirements, there has been no explicit mandate for them to inform authorities before entering environments where children are present. The enhanced ability of police to monitor high-risk individuals effectively, while also deterring potential reoffending by increasing the accountability of registered sex offenders, is clearly welcome. Knowing that additional safeguards are in place to protect children will hopefully give communities greater peace of mind. I urge Committee members to back Opposition amendment 38, which would impose an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender did not notify police that they were entering premises where children were present. There should be no excuses for registered sex offenders in making such a serious breach. If we are seeking to give communities peace of mind, amendment would 38 provide an additional mechanism through which paedophiles would be compelled to think twice about flouting the law, and parents would feel like the law was well and truly on their side when it comes to protecting children from the most dangerous criminals.

    Hansard source