Jack Rankin
MP for Windsor · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a disgrace that hundreds of prisoners have been released in error under this Government, but more concerning are the thousands it will have been an error to release early. The Secretary of State did not answer the previous question, so let’s try another.”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will support the regulations.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q5. The first duty of His Majesty’s Government, and indeed the Prime Minister’s first duty, is the defence of the realm. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the worsening geopolitical situation, but he is responsible for this country’s reaction to it.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just as we must stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face-to-face teaching, in return for huge debt and little prospect of employment at the end, we must ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities deliver the highest-quality provision possible.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like to press the Minister on the importance of face-to-face teaching time. If we want to tackle low-quality provision and ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes, we must ensure that learners receive the highest-quality teaching possible.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, given that providers will occur familiarisation and administrative costs as the changes are implemented, and in the light of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector, what support will be available to help minimise those burdens? The Opposition support the regulations.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
542 held · 539 searchable for Jack Rankin. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“If people have genuine health, religious or work grounds for wearing a face covering, then working with the police and giving written notice will not be an issue for the law-abiding majority.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is clear to most people with some common sense that, as it is currently drafted, with the defence of health, religious or work grounds able to be used, the clause will not have sufficient teeth. Amendment 51 in my name aims to shift the emphasis and prevent malicious actors from circumnavigating the well-intended clause. A 2024 YouGov poll showed that 61% of the public would like to see a ban on Facebook groups where there is a clear intent to intimidate or to prevent police from identifying someone committing a crime. The public know that face coverings at protests are simply the tool of criminals. Let us give the police the real powers they need to tackle the issue.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I strongly believe that those wishing to express a sincere, genuine view in a democracy—one they clearly feel strongly about—should be prepared to put their face to their opinions. With crowds of the kind we are now used to seeing, particularly in London, the police increasingly have to rely on delivering justice after the fact using CCTV, iPhone or bodycam footage. Face coverings frustrate that process. A balaclava, a covid mask or any other type of face covering should not give people a free pass to commit crime. That is why I tabled amendment 51, which would require those wishing to wear a face covering within a designated protest area to register it with police before the event. My concern with clause 86 is that those who wish to cause a problem will cover their face and make spurious claims.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For instance, on 1 March 2025, the Metropolitan police imposed conditions under the Public Order Act to prevent tractors from entering central London during the protest, a measure that was communicated in advance and adhered to by the organisers. However, it is a sad reality that disruptive climate activist protests, antisemitic hate marches and far-right riots are increasingly accompanied by crime. Increasingly, cowards at those protests use face coverings and balaclavas to get away with crimes. Balaclavas intimidate the public, make law enforcement more difficult and embolden the wearer to commit crimes. In my view, face coverings have no place at protests in the overwhelming majority of cases.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Standard reported in May last year that the cost in London had reached over £40 million, an average of £6 million a month between October 2023 and March 2024—eyewatering sums of money that I am sure most people and most Members of this House would prefer the police were using to crack down on shoplifting, mobile phone theft and violent crime. The police put themselves in harm’s way to protect our precious right to protest and keep protesters safe as far as possible. The recent farmers’ protests against proposed inheritance tax reforms were an excellent example of public protest; as of April 2025 there have been no publicly reported arrests by the Metropolitan police in connection with them. The demonstrations, which commenced in November 2024, have been largely peaceful and co-ordinated with the authorities.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In particular, since the onset of large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests in connection with the protests. Those arrests encompass a range of offences, including breaches of Public Order Act conditions, public nuisance, assault of emergency workers and support for proscribed organisations. Notably, during the protest on 18 January 2025, over 70 individuals were arrested after attempting to breach the agreed protest conditions. The Metropolitan police described it as “the highest number of arrests we have seen, in response to the most significant escalation in criminality.” The cost of policing the protests is reaching enormous levels.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Current legislation gives police the power to direct people to remove their face coverings in designated areas, as well as to seize face coverings where they reasonably believe people are wearing them wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing their identity. However, individuals can follow the direction of an officer to remove their face covering but then move to a new area and put the face covering back on. With growing frequency we have seen protesters using a face covering to conceal their identity, clearly with the aim of avoiding a conviction for criminal activity in a designated area. Whether I or any individual hon. Member agrees with each protest is beside the point. The right to protest has long been at the heart of British democracy, but there are legitimate ways to protest and illegitimate ways to protest.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 86 will criminalise the act of wearing or otherwise using an item as a face covering that conceals someone’s own identity or that of another person when in an area that the police have designated. A designation can be made only in relation to an area where the police reasonably believe that a protest may take place or is taking place, that the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of one month’s imprisonment, a £1,000 fine, or both.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for his constructive question. The problem with this defence is that it will obviously be abused. People who are malicious will claim these things after the fact; my amendment is an attempt to change the emphasis slightly. I appreciate that there will be difficulties with enforcement, but the point is that people should have to do this in advance. People who are malicious will not do so, and will not be given permission, so the police can then take action, as opposed to a crime happening, only for the police to go to the CCTV footage of the moment and find that there is nothing to be done.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do wonder how we give proper protection to Hong Kong activists such as Tony Chung and Carmen Lau, who have both had threatening letters sent to their neighbours offering 1 million Hong Kong dollars— 100 grand in our currency—for information about them, or for delivering them to the Chinese embassy. Legitimate protest is in the great spirit of democracy and we need to ensure that we defend people exercising that right properly, particularly in this instance, which would be a legitimate use of face coverings.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the operational challenges; I would suggest that this would simply be automated online. My aim is to stop whole groups of protesters wearing masks. My view is that police should reject those applications if they are not legitimate, at which point they can treat it collectively as an offence. I have a broader question for the Minister. I was thinking about when I would consider it legitimate to wear a mask at a protest. The only instance that I could think of—I am not saying that there are not more—is when, outside the Chinese embassy for example, those protesting what is happening in Hong Kong wish to protect themselves from being targeted by the Chinese state. With my amendment, those individuals should be able to declare that to the relevant police forces ahead of the event.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 89 Possession of pyrotechnic articles at protests Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons29 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons24 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition : [The petition of residents of the constituency of Windsor, Declares that the popular Peascod Street branch of the Post Office in central Windsor has been earmarked for potential closure, which would take away vital mail, travel, driving, identity and money services from the town centre; notes that this is at a time when the town centre faces multiple challenges, including increased car parking charges, the state of the public realm and increased business taxes; and further notes that 1,402 people have signed an online petition on this matter. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the Post Office to ensure that the Peascod Street branch of the Post Office in central Windsor remains open.”
House of Commons23 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to my online petition, which received 1,594 signatures, I rise to present this paper petition on behalf of the residents of Windsor. I thank everybody who signed my petition to save Windsor post office, and in particular my constituent Sue Pendry for her help and campaigning on this issue. While progress on a franchising deal is promising, it is subject to Government funding and may yet see the branch moved up to a mile away. Windsor cannot afford to lose this busy branch when the town centre already faces jacked-up parking charges, increased business taxes and, frankly, the poor state of the public realm. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the Post Office to ensure that the Peascod Street branch of the Post Office in central Windsor remains open.”
House of Commons23 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Personal protective equipment is now worn in all kinds of jobs where people may have to deal with dangerous situations. As Professor Acheson has said, it is “staggering that frontline police staff working in conditions of far greater peril…are not issued with stab vests capable of stopping an attack with a bladed weapon.” We should all be ensuring that our prison officers come home safe to their loved ones. Unions have called for this measure, and I can assure the Minister that they have the full support of those on the Opposition side of the House. Will he act—not in two months or six months, but now—to protect prison officers before it is too late?”
House of Commons22 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his answer, but I suggest that this is something we should just get on with—it is common sense. There is a more fundamental issue. Perhaps I can invite the Minister to provide his assessment of the relative threats provided by different ideological extremists in prisons, which may be fuelling such violence. Islamist terror suspects make up the vast majority of MI5’s caseload. Do they also make up the majority of radicalising criminals in our prison estate?”
House of Commons22 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I question whether amendment 5 is necessary since the Bill refers to a person’s capacity to give consent as well as making informed decisions. I welcome the Minister’s comments on that amendment. On clause 33, I question whether restricting the Bill as written to dwelling structures used by a person as their home or living accommodation may give rise to some future loopholes. A garage or outhouse arguably may be used by the person for their business or for storage. Can the Minister give assurances that the clause accounts for the sometimes fine line, especially in cases of garages and outbuildings that may be used for non-domestic purposes but are still used for cuckooing?”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One form of control exploits vulnerable people by using their home as a base for dealing drugs—the process known as cuckooing. Drug dealers can even sometimes entice a vulnerable person into allowing their home to be used for drug dealing by giving them free drugs or offering to pay for food or utilities. As we have said, these criminals are organised and can therefore be very selective about who they target as cuckoo victims—often, those who are lonely, isolated or drug users. They might operate from a property only for a short amount of time, frequently moving addresses in order to reduce the chances of being caught. Regardless of how long they are there, measures that add a deterrent to this practice are to be welcomed as a further step towards smashing the county lines gangs.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In the previous sitting I touched on the scourge of county lines gangs and the wider pernicious rise of serious, organised criminal gangs in the context of exploiting children. This morning as we focus on clause 32 on cuckooing, it is clear that other vulnerable members of our communities require further protection from these criminals. I am pleased to support the clause, which makes controlling another person’s home for criminal purposes a specific offence. We are seeing cases not only of children, but increasingly of those with mental health or addiction issues, being used by organised criminal groups, usually using high levels of violence and intimidation, to protect their county lines and to control them.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also welcome clause 39, which applies the law to British nationals who are not in the country, especially given the digital nature of this specific type of crime and the fact that criminals are working internationally. In February, at least 25 arrests were made during a worldwide operation led by Europol against child abuse images generated by artificial intelligence. The suspects were part of a criminal group whose members engage in distributing fully AI-generated images of minors. The operation was one of the first involving such child sexual abuse material. The lack of national legislation against these crimes made it “exceptionally challenging for investigators”, according to Europol. These measures change that, and I welcome our law enforcement agencies being able to work more closely together on this most despicable crime.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“IWF analysts say that the deepfakes are especially and increasingly convincing, and that free, open-source AI software appears to be behind many of the deepfake videos. The methods shared by offenders on the dark web are similar to those used to generate deepfake adult pornography. Even more horrifying is that, as the same analyst said, what they found was the worst quality that fully synthetic video will ever be: advances in AI will soon render videos more life-like, in the same way that still images have become more photorealistic. There is no time to waste. The new offence in clause 36, which the Committee unanimously agreed should stand part of the Bill, will make it illegal to adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image generator. It is clearly necessary.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When it comes to child sexual abuse, I can only wholeheartedly support measures that bring legislation up to date and reflect the increasingly digital world in which we live, so that those individuals who commit the most despicable crimes have nowhere to hide from the law. I rise to support the Government in all the offences included in chapter 1 of part 5. It is horrifying to read about the increasing proliferation of this most heinous crime. The Internet Watch Foundation, to which the Minister has already paid tribute, conducted a study between March and April last year, which identified nine deepfake videos on just one dark web forum of dedicated child sexual abuse material. None had been found when the analysts investigated the forum in October the year before.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to express my strong support for clause 43, which is an essential provision that strengthens our ability to combat the abhorrent crimes of child sexual exploitation, particularly by making grooming an aggravating factor. For too long, this country has witnessed devastating failures in the protection of our most vulnerable. Clause 43 represents not just a legal tool but a moral commitment to never again allow these failures to go unanswered. Let us remember the victims in Rotherham, where at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited over a 16-year period. Vulnerable girls were raped, trafficked, threatened and dismissed, and perhaps most disturbing was the silence of those in authority who feared speaking out. Clause 43 confronts that silence.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have read the Jay report but not the other report. I am speaking to clause 43, not the amendments, so I am supporting the Government in my remarks—the Minister can get me later. Clause 43 is intended to compel transparency. It holds those in positions of power accountable when they turn away, and it provides law enforcement with the tools it needs to intervene earlier, investigate more thoroughly and prosecute more decisively.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is also the intent of Opposition amendment 42, which aims to help this legislation to have the most meaning. Each of the cases I have described involved group-based grooming. This is not about politicising tragedy; it is about preventing future tragedy with legislation that matches the problems we know exist. It is a constructive amendment that helps to avoid our repeating the mistakes of the past. I urge my colleagues on the Committee to support that amendment and help deliver the justice that these victims have waited too long to see.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In Rochdale, we saw young girls dismissed as making “lifestyle choices”. These were children, some as young as 12, and they were failed not just by their abusers but by institutions that were supposed to protect them. The grooming gangs in Telford, Oxford and Huddersfield were not isolated incidents. They were systematic failures enabled by cultural sensitivities being prioritised over child safety. They were worsened by fragmented communication between agencies, and clause 43 addresses those issues head on. We owe it to the survivors—those who were silenced, ignored and blamed—to send a message: you were failed, but future children will not be. We will stand up, we will speak out and we will legislate.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This suggests that professionals can responsibly handle the duty to report suspicions, contributing to more robust child protection systems. Amendment 43 could address the under-reporting of child sexual abuse. Research has indicated that child sexual abuse is significantly under-reported, with many victims not disclosing their experience at the time of abuse. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse highlighted that a cultural shift is needed to make discussions about child sexual abuse less taboo. By tabling amendment 43, our intention is to signal our commitment to fostering an environment in which suspicions are taken seriously and professionals are encouraged to report concerns without fear of reprisal. I commend amendment 43 to the Committee.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The BMA should know that, understand the law and have a duty to uphold it. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was clear on this recommendation, and the Crime and Policing Bill seeks to enhance public safety through judicious information-sharing. The existing ethical and legal safeguards governing medical confidentiality remain intact, and it is crucial that GPs and medical professionals take seriously their duty towards children, as that is what 15-year-olds are. The international experience of mandatory reporting laws has already demonstrated the effectiveness of including reasonable suspicion as a trigger for reporting. For instance, the introduction of such laws in Australia led to increased reporting, without a corresponding rise in malicious reports.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The BMA’s focus on confidentiality, in my view, should be weighed against the imperatives of protecting individuals and communities from harm. Most importantly—I was concerned to read this, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments—the BMA says it is concerned that 15-year-olds who are engaged in what it terms “consensual sexual activity” with someone over the age of 18 will be “flooding the system”. My understanding of the law is that 15-year-olds cannot consent to sexual activity with 18-year-olds, and I find it concerning that a professional body is choosing to interpret this country’s laws on sexual consent in this way. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that in her closing remarks. The age at which I understand people can legally consent to sexual activity is 16 in this country.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my view, that perspective seems to neglect the existing legal frameworks that already permit such disclosures in specific circumstances, particularly when public safety is at risk. In fact, the General Medical Council’s guidance allows for breaching confidentiality to prevent serious harm or crime, indicating that the Bill’s provisions are not as unprecedented as the BMA might suggest. Furthermore, the BMA’s apprehensions do not sufficiently consider the potential benefits of the Bill in facilitating a more integrated approach to preventing serious violence. By enabling appropriate information-sharing between healthcare providers and law enforcement, we can create a more robust system for identifying and mitigating threats to public safety.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to clause 45 and the principle running through the clauses that follow it. Clause 45 introduces a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse by establishing a legal obligation for individuals engaged in regulated activities with children, such as teachers and healthcare professionals, to report known instances of child sexual abuse to the police or local authorities. Will the Minister consider the British Medical Association’s written evidence, which raised concerns about the scope of this duty? I disagree with the BMA, having read its evidence, but I want to explore it a little, so I hope the Minister might comment on it. The BMA is worried that the Bill might compel healthcare professionals to disclose patient information to the police, potentially undermining the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship.”
House of Commons8 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗